



o m 







y • 


^ • <>-► O^ 

v-^'" '^'^'f^ 

'...'• ,0^ .-V ^^ '•. . • ,0 

- \, C°^ °o J-^-'*’' •'.^. C°^ •‘'” 

’ ■e.^ '• 

♦** **0 *" 

•C^ "^Ia ® • * '* ‘ • • S V 

' . »• ' • ^ Q' o ° * * ♦ 


® «<v 


• *.. o ^ o ♦,, 1 • ^0 * ®«o ’ 

“ v' f ’ • °> o. .0^ 'v •>;, * 





b V 


. • > ’ * ^ *■ « » • ’ O^ * . / 1 • A° ^ 

1^ aP v' -I'”- =>. a'J •^■in;^:* 

'^O ^ ♦fCCVwA'L ^ ^ • 





<\ <> ' 

fry V/ 

. ,” K«^ ^ 

^ # <Lr o 

^ * » « 0 ’ 

^ V * ’ • ®A <.. 

^ ‘^Va" ‘ 

o Ov^'^ O^ 
® " ® ♦ *^CD «*•'•♦ 

■»b V^ .' 


•% °, .-^*- .-‘JJ’ .0^ 

!ih<- ^ j *^im>:, -r^ .> ,' 


O' aO^ \/ • ’ • ®A cy 




■• y ^ ^ ’’v >* kT 

* • • ’ • ^ " O - « ® 

^ aO^ ^ V^ 



'<f^ 'O.* o 

•^A o< : 


/% /%. l^K-* . 

-v ■<!‘^ '.., * .&^ ♦-‘f^ .^ <r. '... * .0 


° ^ 

♦ ® •» O « 

♦ (((\ SR A, S^ * 


' o. ^0 


® A^ »<• ® ^ 

♦ . ^ -; 


cy * A ' '< 

* • -* ^ * <i> . t *. ^ 

"" ' ■' 


y V'*^* • ''o 

V-. -.^ . .w. 





\/-...rv''-»“.N^ 



V *5 

. 'O.,* 0^ -7^.' A 

I- ^0^ 



' 1 ^ 


**0 . <5^ * * * *' ”" 













1-^0 


*0*0^ A' 

V 

* A ' <^ 'o •»* Jy ^ “^^TTr* A <. 'o,»* .cr 

*'■''* .Or o«»"*» ^ ^ P® 










<0 v* * ’ < o 








*’ ’ ' > V' » ’ • °- o 



• ^ ♦ - 
- Vv 


...r ,0^^ 


.0 o «_’!.*<». 'o 




^ * f\ ' ♦'VUXNNS^ ' N' 

rr*’' A*^ ^ 



^ 4 T> 

^ V 


.0^ 


V C • 

0< " 

‘“'■' R*. 

L^^ "^o r'^-*’,* -0 ^ - 

*’ • » ’ ‘ A® ^ « 

. ’ • o, CV ^0^ *lj;nL'* 

* ^ '**’^'<$'''* ^ “*.'^jB7W<^ » 

S' A ^ * ey- 




* A " '=^ 

cv 

• <1 r O ^ ^ 

’ ' * 

• ^ \ 

*'?."•" 0^ a (,<• *v'^T*' ^'V 

c° r^i' ■/'y'J^’ \ <P <&\' 


A 

V^ ►JL'®- c. 

». afAm>^ ^ ^ <i, '“a(\^^/u*o 

r 








o ^ A * 

'^vT V - 
° 

/ \ 

VT7T* A 

A ^ C 






^ V 







-. -1 

.(y o *•',,«* A - • * «' 

>V O * • - • ^ ' * 4t O^ G 

^ , 1 ^ % ''^ C^ ^ ^ J*^ * /7^ -r C^ •rl 

■»-_ v->- o^ «'*b ^ ^ f 

.^t^. 




<> O’ ^ jSr ***Aj* > V 

• .V>' * A\ 80 //l'’ A * C^JIi^ • ^ * - 

O 






o' o. 



vO • -' • ^ ., 


cS 

' ■♦ -C^? • I 



'•* n'> "V 
f° .. •*“ .\^ 


• • u 



.'J^'^^l'.. ryd^'. A^ .’AV/h!". .C?r .' 






















-V I 






.1 










' -•. :'S 






y<,' 


♦ .4 


rx* 


^ < 


^1., 


1. \ 


“« ► 


v?#' 




‘I 


e 


• »»" ,'i 


/■ . • <: 


j;l V: 

t;^ ■.•>•"■% » ' ‘i'\ 1. . ■> 

|T> i'”’‘ ■^‘' ^•- 'y 


LM> 




^ » 




,* • .. ^ *,/ V 

fc >- 


•r (■ 


‘m.' ^ 




♦•f*! 




r* 


, / 'f 


,« 




kA‘ 






.j?; 


« 


; r 




' • ' 




;"4 V/ I 4 


•* /.'►< 


> •• 


'O 


# '•» 


.£^ 


' ■‘’ V;! V ^ '4 

W - '.rl . . L • 1^ 

. ,-*. ':'''■ ‘ 'j 


%^.1 






•' * 


r i 


¥ 




• ' ■ -■ •>. ^ ^ ■ ■ r- • 

''' ■ ■'■<.»•'.•>“,’■ ^.' 'V, 7 








• T 




f.-nii'. >, i’ 's v, 


.«»• --J 




)» 




.vi^ 


1*1'“. 


/• 




_»>;sVa 




VI,;- 


J 


t 1 •■“> 




' ‘ " lit 


v.K,^-' 


f * ' .14 


L**.' ■. 


rU 


\ _ 




Vif.V Ca 












• 4 ^A. 


4 

'i 


. n 


<\ 


t’ 


U 


^ ' 


AT < 


.u 


z ■ 




•N 


c' 


••rvVlWM‘1 *_» • 1 

--*v, ? 


I * 




<*•« 



* 

^ *» • 

. ^ 

•J 

’ ^ * 

■ 

»*, ■'*? 

♦ 

w 

1. 


I#’ 


^.-■|i ’• J 

. ' I f ^ • J ' ^ ^ 

'yy/jJ voi 


I’vvij 




^ -t 




Jl.'_ 


• I r•• ■ . jw . ■ • ^ 

V’' *'^ ‘k ‘ Jj 






% 






V 


■1 






* SiShjtj 

* . 


,v. 






ij'j 




*\ 




















The Republican Party: 


ITS 


HISTORY, PRINCIPLES, AND POLICIES. 



EDITED 


HON. JOHN D. LONG 


CONTRIBUTORS: 


THE EDITOR ; Hon. EDWARD McPHERSON, of Pa.; Hon. L. E. PAYSON, 
of Ill.; Hon. EDxMUND N. MORRILL, of Kansas; Senator WM. P. FRYE, 
of Maine; Senator WM. E. CHANDLER, of N. H.; Senator JOSEPH R. 

. HAWLEY, of Conn.; Hon. NELSON DINGLEY, Jr., of Maine ; Hon. 

J. C. BURROWS, of Mich.; Hon. GREEN B. RAUM, of Ill.; Hon. 

WM. MCKINLEY,- Jr., of Ohio; Hon. BENJ. BUTTER- 
WORTH and F. D. MUSSEY, Esq., of Ohio ; Hon. JOHxN 
S. WISE, of Va. ; Hon. HENRY CABOT LODGE, of 
Mass.; Hon. JOHN J. INGALLS, of Kansas; 

And Others, 







NEW YORK: 


M. W. HAZEN CO., 


\ 


\ 




THE 





Copyright, 1892.1896. 

BY 


M. W. HAZEN. 



PREFACE. 


While this work will serve a useful purpose in the PresK 
dential campaign of the present year, it has also a higher and 
permanent value as a concise yet substantial history of the 
Republican party, and a comprehensive discussion of the most 
important political questions now pending. 

The object of its preparation has been to give alike to the 
student and to the busy man an authoritative statement, first, of 
the great work achieved by that party for human freedom and 
the people’s welfare ; and, second, of the great economic and 
benefieent principles on which it has insured and will continue 
to insure the development of the Republic along every line of 
prosperity and progress. 

The names of the historian and of the contributors who 
follow him are the best earnest of its contents, each of them 
an authority upon every question he treats, and all holding 
commanding places in national councils. They have been 
actuated by a desire to impress the truth of history and the 
foundations of political principle, and to responsibly instruct 
the popular mind. The result, therefore, is not an ephemeral 
work, prepared as a part of the shout of a campaign, but a sub¬ 
stantial contribution to political literature. 

Parties, like individuals, sometimes suffer from the very un¬ 
broken sequence of their own good record. It at last becomes 
tiresome to hear Aristides always called the Just. No political 
party in any age or quarter of the civilized world ever had so 
brilliant and beneficent a career or lived up to its own standards 
so faithfully as the Republican party of Lincoln and Harrison. 
Yet perhaps for that very reason the new generation of voters, 
who since its birth have come to the ballot-box, hardly ap- 



6 


PREFACE. 


preciate for what an advance and achievement it has stood and 
still stands, and how vital are its principles to the safety and 
progress of the country. There has been at times a tendency 
rather to fling at its grand old record than to count the value of 
its work. It is especially important, therefore, that the popular 
mind be instructed to look beyond the catchwords and party 
cries of the hour, and to comprehend the principles that are at 
stake. 

Happily, too, a reaction has already begun in consequence 
of the present Democratic supremacy, with its painful back¬ 
sliding from the pretense of civil-service reform ; the acknowl¬ 
edged inability of its chief to rise above its own level, either of 
reform or of administration ; its humiliating abandonment of 
American rights in all its negotiations with foreign powers ; and 
its now unconcealed surrender of the protection of American 
industries and labor. 

The Republican party has not only made a Presidential 
nomination which commands the universal respect due to a 
loyal soldier, a wise statesman, and an honest, unspotted man, 
but its platform is a fearless, outspoken statement of its faith, 
evading nothing, inviting discussion, patriotic, progressive, 
American. 

The following pages will not have been written in vain if 
they shall cooperate with the efforts of a party which puts 
such leaders at its front and so boldly enunciates its principles ; 
or if they shall help to reawaken the spirit which in 1861 
sprang, at the risk of life itself, to the rescue of freedom and 
the Union, and which in 1888 is again summoned to the battle 
of the people—the battle of an honest vote against a corrupt 
ballot-box; of education and temperance against the grog-shop ; 
of protected labor against pauperism ; and of a country de¬ 
veloped, defended, prosperous, against national humiliation on 
the one hand or an “ innocuous desuetude” on the other. 

The Editor. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Preface, .4 

PART I.—HISTORICAL. 

Political Parties: 1789 to 1856. The Editor, . . .11 

Origin of Parties in the United States—Formation and Adoption of 
the Constitution under the Guidance of the Federal Party—Washington’s 
Administration—Settlement of the Government—Commerce and 
Tariff—Hamilton’s Doctrines—The First National Bank—Our First 
Foreign Policy—Rise of the Republican (Democratic) Party—Federal 
and Republican Policies—Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 
and 1799—The Republican Party in Power—Internal Improvements—• 
Party Measures—War of 1812-14—Political Results—Demise of the 
Federal Party—A New National Bank—The Era of Good Feeling— 
Beginning of the Slavery Agitation—Missouri Compromise—Clay’s 
“ American System”—The Tariff of 1824—The “ Monroe Doctrine”— 
Formation of the National Republican (Whig) and Democratic Parties 
—The Tariff of 182S—The Democrats under Jackson—The “Spoils 
System” — Surplus Revenue — Panic of 1837 — Overthrow of the 
Democracy in 1840—Tariff of 1842—War with Mexico—The Tariff 
of 1846—Wilmot Proviso—Popular Sovereignty—Kansas and Nebraska 
Bill—Native American Party—Divisions on the Slavery Question 
—The Political Situation. 

Rise and Progress of the Republican Party, 1856-88. 
Hon. Edward McPherson, ex M. C. and ex Sec. U. S. 
House of Representatives,. 36 

The Political Situation—Clay Compromise Measures of 1850—Re¬ 
peal of the Missouri Compromise—The Struggle in Kansas—Organ¬ 
ization of the Republican Party—Party Platforms—Buchanan’s Election 
—The Dred Scott Decision—It intensifies the Slavery Agitation— 
Presidential Election of i860—Position of Parties—Lincoln’s Election 
—The Secession Movement—Buchanan’s Message—Contrast with 
Jackson’s Policy in 1832 —The Resolutions of ’98 —The Confederate 
Constitution—Its Interpretation by A. H. Stephens—“ Peace Con¬ 
gress” at Washington—President Lincoln’s Inauguration—Lincoln and 
Slavery—The Emancipation Proclamation—The Thirteenth Consti- 



8 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

tutional Amendment—Lincoln’s Re-election in 1864—The Political 
Situation—The Anti-Slavery Amendment—President Johnson’s 
Restoration Policy—“ Freedmen’s Codes” in the South—Action of 
the Thirty-ninth Congress—The Military Reconstruction Act—The 
Presidential Election of 186S—The Fifteenth Amendment—Lincoln’s 
Probable Action—A Retrospect—The Financial Record of the Parties 
—Treasury Notes—Internal Revenue Laws—The “Legal Tender” 

Act—The National Banking Law—Rapid Decrease of the Enormous 
War Debt—Resumption of Specie Payments—Recent Political History 
—A Summary. 


PART IT.—VITAL QUESTIONS. 

Public Lands. L. E, Payson, M. C. from Illinois, . . 115; 

Our Original Land Policy—Pre-emption Laws—Origin and Results 
of the Homestead Law—Land Grants in Aid of Railroads and Canals— 
Reclamation of Unearned Lands—Alien Ownership. 

Pensions. E. N. Morrill, M. C. from Kansas, . .124. 

Our Pension System—Growth of the Pension List—Pension Office 
Administration—Spirit and Aims of Parties—Pension Vetoes—Action 
of Congress. 

Our Fisheries. Senator Wm. P. Frye, of Maine, . . 144. 

Original Fishing Rights: How Acquired—Treaties of 1783, 1818, and 
1S71—Canadian Outrages—Evident Purpose of the Canadian and 
English Governments—The Retaliatory Law and i&s Non-enforcement 
—Treaty of 18S8—Importance of the Fishing Industry. 

The American Navy. Senator William E. Chandler, of 
New Hampshire, ........ 165, 

Condition in iS6t —Wonderful Increase in Power—Brilliant Exploits 
during the Rebellion—Naval Policy immediately after the War—Rev¬ 
olution in Naval Construction—Reconstruction of our Navy begun in 
1882—Conduct of the Navy Department under President Cleveland. 

Our Coast Defenses. Senator Joseph R. Hawley, of 

Connecticut,.182 

Our Strength on Land—Condition of our Sea-coast Defenses—Want 
of Congressional Action—Modern Heavy Ordnance—The British Navy 
—Our Northern Frontier—On the East and West—Short Distances to 
Europe—Value of Destructible Property exposed to an Enemy—Our 
Defenseless Condition—Party Policies. 

The AxMerican Merchant Marine. Nelson Dingley, Jr., 

M. C. from Maine,.207 

Early Maritime Spirit—Growth and Decline of our Carrying Trade— 
Decadence of Ship-building—Our Coastwise Tonnage—Some Delusive 
Theories Refuted—Why we do not Compete with British Vessels— 


CONTENTS. 


9 


PAGE 

Wages, Maintenance of Crews, and Cost of Vessels—Objections to Free 
Ships—Government Aid—Party Policies. 

Our Foreign Trade. Hon. J. C. Burrows, of Michigan, 2 i9 

Growth of our Exports and Imports, 1790 to 1887—Balance of 
Trade—Promotion of Foreign Commerce by Establishing Postal Facili¬ 
ties— Results of Restricting Mail Service—Liberal Subsidies granted 
by other Nations—Our True Policy. 

Internal Revenue. Hon. Green B. Raum, of Illinois, 231 

Fiscal Policy adopted in 1861—Direct and Internal Taxation a War 
Measure—Comprehensive Character of the System—The Enormous 
Sums Collected—Tax Reductions since the War—Probable Total Re¬ 
peal of the System in Time. 

A Protective Tariff. Hon. William McKinley, of 

Ohio,.241 

The Higher Considerations of the Subject—A Question of Industrial 
Independence—What Free Trade Means—Meaning of a Tariff for Pro¬ 
tection, and a Tariff for Revenue Only—Freedom of Exchange among 
our own Sixty Million People. Reasonable Restraint upon Outsiders 
—The Value of Protection—Disastrous Results of a Tariff for Revenue 
Only—Magnificent Results of 27 Years of Protection—Other Nations 
coming to its Adoption. 

Internal Development. Benjamin Butterworth, of 

Ohio, and F. D. Mussey,. 257 

Agricultural Growth —Decrease in Size, and Increase in Number and 
Value of Farms—The Cereals—Hay, Cotton. Tobacco, and Other Great 
Staples—Live Stock. Number and Value—Dairy Products-Wool-clip. 

Manufactures —Number, Capital Invested, and Value of Products— 
Influence on National Growth and Prosperity Great Possibilities of 
the Future. 

Commerce —Rapid Growth — Inland Coastwise Foreign Trans¬ 
portation. 

Railroads —Rise, Growth, and Present Condition of our Railway 
System—Influence on National Development. 

Waterways — Mining —The Precious Metals Useful Minerals 
Petroleum—Natural Gas— Conclusion. 

The Civil Service. Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, of 

Massachusetts,. 

The “Spoils System”—Origin of the Reform Movement—Progress 
under Republican Administrations—History of the “ Reform” under 
President Cleveland—Future of the New System. 

The New South. John S. Wise, of Virginia, ex M. C., . 3®7 

Early Political Sentiment—The National and States-rights Ideas 
The South under Slavery—Revolution in the Domestic Economy 
wrought by Emancipation—Changed Conditions and Opinions—Old 


io 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Prejudices Passing Away—Acceptance of Republican Doctrines— 
Material and Social Progress—A Bright Future. 

A Fair Vote and an Honest Count. Hon. John J. 

Ingalls, of Kansas,. 323 

Republicans Favor Honest Elections—Democratic Crimes against 
the Suffrage—Southern Elections—Election of 1876—Recent Frauds in 
Various Northern States—An Honest Universal Suffrage the Founda¬ 
tion-stone of our Political System—Our Liberties Endangered. 

The Future Mission of the Party. Senator Geo. F. 

Hoar, of Massachusetts,. 339 

Past Achievements—Constituent Elements of the Two Great 
Parties—The Republican Faith—Important Objects to be Accomplished 
—Forward. 

PART III. 

Rise and Progress of the Republican Party, 1884 to Date. 

J. Harris Patton, Ph. D., of New York, . . 344 

The Campaign of 1884—Cleveland’s Election—Weakness and Failure 
of his Administration—Democratic Attempts to injure Labor and unsettle 
Business—The Campaign of 1888—Election of Harrison—Four prosper¬ 
ous Years—Successful Diplomacy—Samoan Affair—Behring Sea Contro¬ 
versy—South American Matters—Act to encourage Ship Building— 
Monetary Conference—Civil Service—McKinley Tariff—Reciprocity— 
Appropriations—Foreign Opposition to Tariff—Canvass of 1892—Elec¬ 
tion of Cleveland—Business unsettled—Wilson-Gorman Tariff—Bond 
Issues—Indebtedness—Monroe Doctrine—Bad Foreign Policy—Hawaii 
—Venezuela—The Money Que.stion—Canvass of 1896. 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Abraham Lincoln,. 

Fro7itispiece. 

Alexander Hamilton,. 

Page 14 

Henry Clay,. 

•- 34 

Daniel Webster,. 

Wm. Henry Harrison,. 

. 74 

. . . 114 

. 154 
. 194 

. 244 

. 294 

• • . 358 

Ulysses S. Grant,. 

Rutherford B. Hayes, .... 

James A. Garfield, ..... 

Chester A. Arthur, ..... 

Gen. Benjamin Harrison, .... 










THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


POLITICAL PARTIES: 1789-1856. 

By the Editor. 

During -the Revolution there were two parties—the Whig 
and the Tory. The former contended for independence from 
Great Britain; the latter for continued allegiance to that 
power. The patriots triumphed, and the Tories either fled 
the country or accepted the situation and submitted. 

For a time thereafter no organized political parties existed. 
Under the Articles of Confederation, however, earnest move¬ 
ment soon began for a stronger common government. There 
was no executiv^e power. Congress could recommend action 
to the States, but it had no power to enforce action. It was a 
political condition of national helplessness. Its continuance 
was certain to result in resolving the Union back into its orig¬ 
inal elements of thirteen independent sovereignties. There 
was a general recognition of the necessity of a more vigorous 
national constitution; but when the question came of its forma¬ 
tion, then began the differences which have ever since distin¬ 
guished parties in this country. On one side were those who 
emphasized the Nation, demanded sovereign federal power, 
and insisted on liberal provision for national development and 
forthputting; while on the other were those who emphasized 
the States, demanded the reservation of their sovereignty, and 
insisted on restricted national powers. The Constitution was 
a compromise of these conflicting forces. And as the conflict 
was waged in its promotion, so has it since been waged in 
its interpretation and application. The question of its adop¬ 
tion by the several States turned each one of them into two con- 



12 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


tending camps—Federalist and Anti-federalist. Nothing but 
the absolute necessity of a national government gave us our 
present Federal Constitution. 

Once in operation, there was so far a suspension of party 
organization (but never of fundamental difference of opinion) 
that Washington was the unanimous choice of the people as 
their first president. Hardly, however, had his administration 
begun—the first administration of the Federalists—before an 
opposition party asserted itself. The French Revolution had 
just overthrown monarchy and set up a republic. The Ameri¬ 
can people were at once touched with sympathy with this new 
cause of freedom and shocked at the atrocities that marked its 
career. As one or the other sentiment predominated, so did 
it array our people on one side or the other. Wisely refrain¬ 
ing from interference with the quarrels in which the French 
Republic was engaged with its neighbors, Washington and his 
cabinet arrayed the Federalists upon the neutral ground which 
has since then been the American policy as to European com¬ 
plications. On the other hand, Jefferson, leaning towards 
French radicalism, was gathering those who sympathized with 
the French movement around the banner of popular democ¬ 
racy with which he was then and thenceforth identified, and 
under which he began to marshal the great party that has from 
that time looked to him as its founder. 

Washington issued a proclamation announcing that the 
United States government would remain neutral in the wars 
then going on in Europe. This document roused the anger of 
the Anti-federalists, who seized upon the occasion to organize 
a systematic and general opposition to the administration, but 
especially to the policy of neutrality. Then followed the for¬ 
mation of a series of clubs, modeled after the radical Jacobhi 
Clubs of Paris; the object of the latter being to oppose the 
existing government of that city by secret measures and in¬ 
trigues. The “ Democratic Society ” was formed in Phila¬ 
delphia, at that time the seat of the National Government. 
Similar clubs were organized extensively in Pennsylvania and 
in other States. Meanwhile these associations attracted the 
attention of the Parisians, and one, “ the Society of Charleston, 


POLITICAL PARTIES: 1789-1856. 


13 


South Carolina, on its own application was recognized by the 
Jacobin Club in Paris as an affiliated branch.” There was some 
difficulty in adopting a party name. The first used was' Denio- 
cratic-Repiiblicaji; but the latter word, though preferred by 
Jefferson, was after some time dropped, and the simple desig¬ 
nation “ Democratic ” retained. 

Immediately after the adoption of the Constitution differ¬ 
ences of opinion arose as to its proper interpretation. The orig¬ 
inal Anti-federalists wished to have it interpreted ‘‘strictly,” 
while the Federalists believed that the Constitution should be 
so interpreted as to make the operation of its principles most 
effectual in national development. Alexander Hamilton em¬ 
phasized the “ implied powers of the Constitution ”■—meaning 
that if the Constitution authorizes a certain thing to be done, it 
impliedly authorizes the use of the appropriate means to do it. 
The former class of expounders were known in the phrases of 
the times as “strict constructionists,” and the latter as “loose 
or broad constructionists.” 

The doctrine of the implied powers of the Constitution has 
become the settled policy of the land ; to this result the strict 
constructionists themselves have materially aided. For in¬ 
stance : The Constitution authorizes Congress “ to make all 
laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into exe¬ 
cution the foregoing powers,” meaning those expressly given it 
by the Constitution. Among these is authority “ to regulate 
commerce among the several States.” As trade cannot be car¬ 
ried on properly without facilities for exchange. Congress char¬ 
tered a “ National Bank for twenty years, with the privilege to 
establish branches in the States” (1789). This bank was estab¬ 
lished at the suggestion of Hamilton. The strict construction¬ 
ists bitterly opposed the proposition. They took special 
umbrage at the last clause, which permitted branches to be 
organized within the States. They thus discouraged a measure 
that would seem to have the effect of uniting the States in a 
bond of Union. The chief opposition in this case came from 
the Virginia school of constructionists. At this early day we 
see cropping out the theory that afterwards developed into the 
extreme States-right doctrine. 


H 


THE REPUELICAN PARTY. 


Akin to this was the question of Internal Improvements. 
Congress, for example, is authorized by the Constitution “ to 
establish post-offices and post-roads.” It was very important 
to make the valley of the Ohio more accessible to the Atlantic 
slope by means of a suitable road across the Alleghany Moun¬ 
tains. In consequence the famous National or Cumberland 
road was proposed to be built by the National Government. 
The “ strict constructionists” proclaimed the project unconsti¬ 
tutional, yet when in authority they voted appropriations for 
it till it was finished (1806-1820). The road was too important 
to permit fine-spun theories of interpretation to frustrate the 
work. 

The Constitution says: “ New States may be admitted by 
Congress into the Union.” The authority is given and Con¬ 
gress is at liberty to devise the means ; neither is there any re¬ 
striction as to how the proposed territory shall be obtained. 
Here is an occasion wherein the “ implied powers” can be util¬ 
ized. The important question as to the purchase of Louisiana 
presented itself, and President Jefferson, the chief of the strict 
constructionists, was put to the test of his own theories. Of 
course he yielded, and made the purchase (1803), but apolo¬ 
gized for the act by characterizing it as extra-constitutional. 

These inconsistencies of the prominent strict constructionists 
did much to neutralize the influence of their theory, and cause 
that of the “implied powers” to become the policy of the Na¬ 
tion. The power of Congress to charter National banks, or to 
make appropriations for internal improvements, has long since 
been unquestioned ; while Congress is untrammeled in obtain¬ 
ing territories, and in due time, as the case may be, admitting 
them as States. 

The Federal party was in power during the administration 
of Washington, and that of John Adams. During this time its 
policy was subjected to the continual and unscrupulous assaults 
of the opposition, whose leaders resisted nearly every measure 
proposed in Congress by the Federalists. 

The “ clubs” being modeled after those of Paris, partook of 
the traits of the latter, and the turbulent and violent men of 
the times found in them congenial elements. Says Prof. Sum. 





































POLITICAL PARTIES : 1789-1856. 1$ 

ner, in his life of Jackson : “The Republican (Democratic) par¬ 
ty in 1796 was filled with ill-informed and ill-regulated sympathy 
for the French Revolutionists, and if it could have had its way 
it would have committed the United States to close relations 
with France, and, by importing Jacobinism into this country, 
have overthrown constitutional liberty here.” 

The principles of his predecessor governed the administra¬ 
tion of John Adams, and the opposition was still indefatigable 
in assaults upon his policy, which, on the whole has since be¬ 
come the policy of the Union. It is remarkable that though 
the Federalists were defeated in the election that chose Jeffer¬ 
son President, yet the main features of their interpretation of 
the Constitution have since been accepted. One of the best 
appointments made by John Adams was the most important 
in its influence ever made by a President. It was the appoint¬ 
ment of John Marshall, of Virginia, to the office of Chief 
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The 
Federal party, though dead, spoke through him for thirty-five 
years, sustaining the integrity of the Constitution of an integral 
Nation in contradistinction to that of a confederation or league 
of States; repelling the continuous assaults of those who, if 
their theories had been carried out, would have disintegrated 
the Union; and dissipating the ominous shadows of the fa¬ 
mous resolutions of 98, which culminated in the attempt at 
nullification and afterward in the effort to break up the Union 
by force of arms. The gist of these resolutions is that the 
States, having formed the Union, are still sovereign and inde¬ 
pendent, and have a right, of their own separate motion, to 
nullify any act of the Federal Government which they, of their 
own separate judgment, regard as unconstitutional, thus mak¬ 
ing anyone State more potent than the Union of them all. It 
was a departure from Madison’s former faith. It was the doc¬ 
trine of “ States’ Rights,” which later found its great advocate 
in Calhoun, whom Webster overthrew in debate, and its last 
defense in the intrenchments of the rebellion of 1861, which 
the soldiers of the North forever leveled under the resistless 
sweep of their victorious battalions. The Federals survived as 
a party organization till the second election of Jefferson in 


i6 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


1804; he then had 162 electoral votes, while the Federal candi¬ 
date, Charles C. Pinckney, had only 14. 

The relative material prosperity of the country for twelve 
consecutive years under Washington and Adams has never 
been excelled when viewed in the light of the circumstances of 
the time, and compared with other prosperous periods of our 
Nation. Commerce throve. An immense carrying trade was 
promoted, owing to the wars then in progress in Europe. The 
revenue was ample for the .current expenses of the Govern¬ 
ment. Industrial pursuits were encouraged to a remarkable 
extent. But the masses were led to believe by the harangues 
and ludicrous clamor of native demagogues and the newspaper 
writings of foreign refugee editors, that the Nation was rush¬ 
ing headlong to destruction. 

After the second election of Jefferson (1804) the Federal 
party virtually disbanded as a political organization, except in 
the New England States; yet its leading minds maintained in 
Congress a dignified support of their distinctive principles 
whenever occasion required. 

The wars continuing in Europe, a number of questions 
came up in Congress during Jefferson’s administration, which 
were debated with great power and eloquence. Some of the 
measures proposed by the President met with much opposition 
from a portion of his own party, who joined with the Federal¬ 
ists from the North, especially Massachusetts. These bolting 
Democrats were contemptuously nicknamed ‘‘ Quids” by their 
former associates. They were led by John Randolph, of Vir¬ 
ginia, and without doubt caused the modification of some ob¬ 
jectionable measures. One of these was the gunboat scheme 
in which the President, on the plea of economy, recommended 
to be built and equipped a number of gunboats, which were to 
be anchored in the harbors as a means of defense against an 
enemy’s warships, instead of having men-of-war of our own. 
As soon as he entered upon office he had commenced cutting 
down expenses by stopping work on the six ships of the line 
then in construction for the defense of our coasts and our com¬ 
merce. The money had been appropriated and the work begun 
during John Adams’administration, but Jefferson ordered their 


POLITICAL PARTIES: 1789-1856. I7 

frames to be cut up and the timber made into gunboats. The 
latter came to nothing in the way of defense, and were the 
subject of ridicule, especially among naval men. 

As another expedient Jefferson proposed the famous em¬ 
bargo, which his majority in Congress, having implicit faith in 
the wisdom of the executive, passed. It proved equally futile 
in annoying the belligerents, who were boarding and searching 
American merchantm.en, ostensibly for goods contraband of 
war, and ruining the Nation’s commerce, especially that of the 
New England States, in which at that day the principal ship¬ 
ping interests of the country was concentrated. These irrita¬ 
tions between England and the United States continued, and 
the commander of the British frigate Leopard, emboldened 
by the defenseless condition of our coast, fired upon, boarded, 
and took from the deck of the United States frigate Chesa¬ 
peake four men, whom he claimed as deserters from another 
British vessel. This incident served to unite both political 
parties in condemning such outrages, but owing to the parsi¬ 
mony of the administration the country was virtually defense¬ 
less, and consequently was contemptuously treated by the 
belligerents of Europe. 

In 1808, the Democrats nominated James Madison, of Vir¬ 
ginia, for the office of President, and the Federalists, now 
joined by the Quids, renominated their previous candidate, 
Charles C. Pinckney—Madison receiving 122 electoral votes, 
and Pinckney 47. 

When Madison assumed office our difficulty with foreign 
nations yet continued, and with England they were still more 
complicated. P'rom 1803 to 1811, it is said that 9CK) Amer¬ 
ican merchant vessels were captured by the belligerents with 
■corresponding loss to the owners, but the Government at 
Washington could hardly be roused into an attitude of self- 
respecting resistance. 

Congress, on the recommendation of President Madison, 
finally declared war against England, June 18, 1812. The 
effect of the declaration was in the main to unite all parties 
in defense of the country, but of course there were different 
‘Opinions in respect to the manner in which the war should be 


i8 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


conducted. The remarkable success of- the little navy in cap¬ 
turing British vessels of equal power, and the skill and daring 
of the American officers, elicited praise from friend and foe, 
and had the effect of greatly encouraging the Nation and de¬ 
veloping a vigorous war sentiment. After the war the whole 
people were virtually united in one party. “ The cardinal prin 
ciple of the Federal party, the preservation and perpetuity of 
the Federal Government, had been quietly accepted and 
adopted by the Democrats, while the Democratic principle of 
limiting the P'ederal Government’s powers and duties had been 
adopted by the Federalists.” 

In the presidential election of i8i6, James .Monroe, of 
Virginia, was elected President. So great was the unanimity 
of sentiment now manifested throughout the Union that a 
part of the time of this administration was characterized as 
the “ era of good feeling.” 

Meanwhile elements were at work preparing the way for 
new political organizations. The spirit of enterprise was 
abroad in respect to mechanical industry, and at the same time 
there was growing up within the Democratic party itself a 
more liberal construction of the Constitution, in contrast with 
the views of the strict constructionists which formerly pre¬ 
vailed. Congress passed a tariff designed for revenue, but also 
involving further protection to our “infant industries.” 

The movement did not stop there, but went still further, 
and chartered a National Bank for twenty years (i8i6). Alex¬ 
ander Hamilton’s famous argument in favor of such a bank 
was now published in leading newspapers throughout the 
country with warm approval. Almost a complete change had 
taken place from the narrow theory held by the early Demo¬ 
cratic leaders. The number holding these liberal views, with 
which the former Federalists fully sympathized, were now 
sufficient to become the germ of a new political organization. 
Henry Clay was the inspiring spirit. He was the first to stand 
forth and encourage every movement that would promote 
American industry and progress. He had been aggressive 
during the war of 1812, and was the chosen leader of the 
young and progressive American element. 


POLITICAL PARTIES: 1789-1856. 


9 


Just as party lines were about to be drawn on these ques¬ 
tions another element cropped out, which suddenly made two 
parties clear and distinct, but they were on a geographical 
line—that of the free-labor and the slave-labor States. 

The question of slavery came into our politics as a disturb¬ 
ing cause in the relations between these great sections of the 
Union. The occasion was when the Territory of Missouri 
(1819) presented itself to be received into the Union as a State. 
Congress granted the request, but insisted on an amendment 
to its constitution in the form of a clause forbidding slavery. 
The Territory belonged to the Louisana purchase, all of which 
was reckoned free soil, but it had been settled largely from the 
States of Virginia and Kentucky. The settlers had taken with 
them their slaves, and wished to perpetuate the system of 
negro servitude. In the House the members from the free- 
labor States, having a majority, voted for the clause prohibiting 
slavery, while those from the slave-labor States voted against 
it. But the amendment failed to pass the Senate. 

Congress adjourned (March 3, 1819), and the question 
passed over to a new Congress which met on the 6th of 
the following December. This was the commencement of an 
agitation that lasted for forty-five years, and was only allayed 
after a bloody war lasting four years. During all these years 
slavery was a disturbing element, its advocates uniting in their 
efforts to preserve the system, and also to extend it by acquir¬ 
ing Territories for that express purpose. Its guardians watched 
every movement that had a tendency either to benefit or 
injure it. This spirit penetrated business relations North 
and South; it influenced the education of the people; tram¬ 
meled the intercourse between the two sections; stood in the 
way of a free expression of opinion or interchange of thought 
on the subject; invaded the churches and created divisions; 
and made even the teaching of the slaves to read a penal 
offense. Financial questions and tariff legislation were made 
subordinate to the advancement and stability of the slave sys¬ 
tem ; the Nation was disgraced by filibustering expeditions 
against our Southern neighbors in order to make room for its 
extension. Party lines to a certain extent on subjects not con- 


20 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


nected with slavery, directly or indirectly, were found in the 
free as well as in the slave labor States, but on slavery the geo¬ 
graphical line was definitely drawn. 

The following year Missouri again applied for admission to 
the Union, and at the same session Maine, formerly a part of 
Massachusetts, also applied. The latter was granted admission 
by the House without opposition, but the former was again re¬ 
fused because the amendment prohibiting slavery was insisted 
upon. When the matter came before the Senate, it joined the 
two interests in one bill and passed it. It was the first instance 
of the policy initiated for the purpose of having the increase 
of the Senate equally divided between the free and slave 
States. When the Senate bill came to the House it was re¬ 
jected. A compromise followed, known as the famous Mis¬ 
souri Compromise (1820). By this, Missouri was admitted to 
the Union, but it was provided that thenceforth slavery 
should be prohibited in all Territories lying north of the line 
36° 30' and west of the State line of Missouri. 

President Monroe was elected for a second term (1820), with 
only one electoral vote against him. The tendency to a more 
liberal construction of the Constitution was manifest from the 
fact that the House elected John W. Taylor of New York its 
Speaker. He was in favor of a Protective Tariff, of a system 
of internal improvements, and also of limiting the extension of 
slavery. The Southern members took umbrage at the action 
of the House; already were heard mutterings about the disso¬ 
lution of the Union. 

The strict constructionists were, however, able to defeat an 
attempt to enlist government aid in favor of a national canal 
system, and also a tariff having more protective features. 

During the first session of the last Congress (XVHIth) of 
Monroe’s administration mention was made by him in one of 
his messages of the revolt of the Spanish colonies on this con¬ 
tinent against that country. It was then that he announced as 
the policy of the United States that they would not interfere 
in European affairs, neither would they tolerate any European 
power obtaining a controlling influence on this continent. 
This declaration has passed into history as the Monroe Doctrine / 


POLITICAL PARTIES: 1789-1856. 21 

but its inspiring spirit was John Quincy Adams, Secretary of 
State. 

The tariff of 1824 was an advance in its protective features. 
It was passed by the votes of the Northern members, while the 
Southern were almost unanimously opposed to it on the ground 
that it was unconstitutional. They also charged that it was 
sectional. Congress at the same session, passed a bill to insti¬ 
tute a series of preliminary surveys for a national system of 
lands. The era of good feeling had obliterated organized par¬ 
ties, yet there was pervading the minds of the people a distinct 
recognition of the change going on in respect to the interpreta¬ 
tion of the Constitution. 

The result of the disintegration of political parties was that 
when the contest for the Presidency in 1824 commenced, vari 
ous coteries put forth their favorites as candidates. There 
were four in all; William H. Crawford, of Georgia, Secretary of 
the Treasury ; John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, Secretary 
of State ; Henry Clay, of Kentucky, Speaker of the House, and 
General Aadrew Jackson, of Tennessee, then in private life. 

Party lines were not clearly drawn, but Crawford and 
Jackson were recognized as strict constructionists—Adams and 
Clay as more liberal. Jackson was, however, inclined to favor 
a Protective Tariff. John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, Secre¬ 
tary of War, was generally supported for the Vice-Presidency 
by the friends of the other candidates, and he was selected by 
the popular vote. 

Of the four candidates for the Presidency Jackson had 99 
electoral votes; Adams, 84; Crawford,41 ; and Henry Clay 37. 
As no candidate had a majority of the whole electoral vote the 
election, according to the Constitution, was transferred to the 
House of Representatives, which on such an occasion votes by 
States. Only the three candidates having the highest number 
of electoral votes were eligible to be voted for; hence Henry 
Clay was excluded. The friends of Clay gave Adams their 
vote, and he was elected President; thirteen States voted for 
Adams, seven for Jackson, and four for Crawford. 

As soon as Adams assumed office the strict constructionists 
—the Jackson and Crawford men—joined forces in general op- 


22 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


position to his administration. This had the effect of uniting 
in its defense the liberal constructionists, the supporters of 
Adams and Clay. These combinations of the four factions 
formed two parties. The first retained the name Democrat, 
(the name preferred by Jackson) and the second was known as 
National Republican. The latter organization was composed 
of the remnants of the Federal party and the more liberal and 
progressive elements of the Democratic party which had joined 
them. 

In the first session of the XIXth Congress (1825) the liberals 
had only five majority in the House, and that was liable at any 
time to change sides on doubtful questions. In the Senate 
they also had a majority. In that body an important change 
was made in the appointment of its committees. From the 
foundation of the Government, thirty-seven years before, the 
presiding officer had named the members of the several com¬ 
mittees. At this session Vice-President Calhoun was charged 
with packing them in such a manner as to give the control to 
the “Jackson men;'’ and the Senate, to avoid the application 
of such illiberal partisanship, changed the rule, and since then 
has chosen its own committees. ^ 

During the remainder of Adams’ administration the opposi¬ 
tion virtually resolved itself into obstructionists in order to pre¬ 
vent the passage of measures that would have a national bear¬ 
ing. The House passed a bill increasing somewhat the rates of 
the existing tariff, but Vice-President Calhoun defeated it in 
the Senate by his casting vote. In 1816 he had favored a 
Protective Tariff, as he had also inclined to a National Bank. 
But as the champion of slavery he became the very champion 
also of States’ rights. 

The elections for the Twentieth Congress resulted in giving 
the Democrats the control of the House of Representatives. 

Meanwhile discussions in regard to the protection of Amer¬ 
ican industries continued among the people and in the news¬ 
papers, especially in the free-labor States. A tariff having 
higher rates than that of 1824 was demanded. In this demand 
numbers of Democrats of the latter States joined the Protec¬ 
tionists. The strict constructionists, especially in the slave- 


POLITICAL PARTIES: 1789-1856. 


23 


labor States, were in favor of what they termed a “ Tariff for 
revenue only.” The latter States had scarcely any manufact¬ 
ories or diversity of industries ; they had cotton, tobacco, and 
the proceeds of their pine forests to send abroad in exchange 
for what they received from outside their own States. After 
a debate of some six weeks the tariff of 1828 was passed, which 
in its general protective character satisfied the manufacturers of 
the free-labor States, but was bitterly opposed by the cotton 
and tobacco raisers in the slave States. The latter character¬ 
ized it as “ legalized robbery.” Now were heard the mutter- 
ings of nullification, to sanction which were invoked the prin¬ 
ciples of the resolutions of ’98. 

Meanwhile a Presidential canvas was going on; the candi¬ 
dates of the Democracy were Andrew Jackson and John C. Cal¬ 
houn ; of the National Republicans, John Quincy Adams and 
Richard Rush, of Pennsylvania. This was the first time that 
the candidates of both parties were taken respectively from 
the slave-labor and free-labor States. Both selections were 
deemed sectional. In the election the Democrats were suc¬ 
cessful by a large majority. 

The last session of Congress under J. Q. Adams’ adminis¬ 
tration was comparatively quiet; the obstructionists had ob¬ 
tained their object—the future control of the Government. 
The President in his message strongly advocated protection- 
Unusually large appropriations were made for internal improve¬ 
ments, though opposed by the “ strict ” Democrats on the 
ground that they were unconstitutional. 

During General Jackson’s administrations (1829-1837) the 
leading parties remained the same. This was the period of 
the Anti-masonic party, which arose in Western New York. 
It grew out of the kidnapping of William Morgan (1826), a 
citizen of Batavia in that State, and a member of the society 
of Freemasons. He proposed to publish a book revealing the 
secrets of the order, and suddenly disappeared under circum¬ 
stances that aroused suspicions of foul play. The affair caused 
great excitement in that portion of the State, and a political 
party was formed, whose “avowed object was to exclude Free- 
m.asons from office.” It disappeared in a few years, after hav- 


24 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 


ing polled in several States, and at different times, a large 
number of votes, though it never became a national party. 
Members of it appeared, however, in limited numbers on the 
floor of Congress, and the party assisted in making nominations 
and in supporting candidates for the Presidency. In general 
political views they sympathized with the National Republi¬ 
cans. 

Another organization—“The National Anti-slavery So¬ 
ciety ”—suddenly appeared (1833), and afterward exerted a tre¬ 
mendous influence upon the destinies of the Nation, though it 
never claimed to be a national political party. 

The National Republicans became more and more dissatis¬ 
fied with their name, and in the State of New York (1834) they 
adopted that of Whig, borrowed from Revolutionary times. 
This name was gradually accepted and in a short time it be¬ 
came the recognized title of the organization. 

When the Presidential canvas of 1836 was impending, the 
first of our National Conventions was-held at Baltimore, a year 
in advance, by delegates of the Democratic party, who nomi¬ 
nated Martin Van Buren, of New York, for the office of Presi¬ 
dent, and Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, for the second 
place. The Whigs and the Anti-masons, after a rather in¬ 
formal nomination, supported General William H. Harrison, of 
Ohio, for the office of President, and Francis Granger, of New 
York, for the second place. Van Buren was elected, and John¬ 
son, not having received a majority of the electoral votes cast, 
was chosen by the Senate. 

Van Buren’s administration (1837-1841), in itsgeneral policy, 
was designed to be the prolongation of that of Jackson, the 
new President announcing upon his entrance upon office his 
purpose “ to follow in the footsteps of his illustrious predeces¬ 
sor.” The latter had “ sown the wind,” and the former was 
about “ to reap the whirlwind.” It came in the form of the 
national financial crash of 1837, to that time the most tre¬ 
mendous in our history. The banks of New York city were 
the first to suspend specie payments; those of other cities soon 
followed. The failures were specially numerous in New 
Orleans; corporations became bankrupt as well as businessmen. 


POLITICAL PARTIES : I789-1856. 


25 


and many fortunes which, owing to the speculations current at 
the time, had a fictitious basis, vanished like a vision. Finan¬ 
cial distress pervaded the whole land. 

When the XXVth Congress met in extra session, it was 
found that the Whigs had made unusual gains, lacking only 
fourteen of having a majority in the House. A number of 
Democratic members sympathized with them, and a small 
number of the latter, calling themselves Conservatives, voted 
with them on financial questions. In the following Congress, 
though the Whigs continued to gain, they did not secure a 
majority. But their gradual increase indicated the tendency 
in the public mind in favor of their political views. The Anti¬ 
slavery sentiment meanwhile was also increasing in the free- 
labor States, and in consequence a Liberty party was formed. 
This organization nominated (1839) national candidates— 
James G. Birney, of New York, for President, and Francis Le 
Moyne, of Pennsylvania, for the second place. 

To prepare for the impending Presidential election the 
Whig National Convention met earlier than usual at Harrisburg 
(December 4, 1839), nominated General William H. Har¬ 
rison a second time for the office of President, and John Tyler, 
of Virginia, for the second place. The following May, the 
Democrats met in convention in Baltimore and unanimously 
renominated Mr. Van Buren, but made no nomination for 
Vice-president. Their platform was apparently a step back¬ 
ward. It denied the authority of the Constitution to aid inter¬ 
nal improvements or protect manufactures, or to charter a 
National Bank. This platform of principles had the effect of 
rousing a more intense opposition among the Whigs, and also 
of influencing in the same direction a large number of pro¬ 
gressive Democrats. 

At the election the Whigs were overwhelmingly successful, 
the electoral votes being for Harrison, nearly 4 to i. Here was 
a break in the control of the National Government by the 
Democracy, and it was brought about largely by the men within 
its own ranks who thought for themselves and refused to be 
trammeled in their action by the traditions of the party. Har¬ 
rison was also supported by independent citizens of all classes. 


26 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


The conduct of the canvass had been with far more than ordi¬ 
nary excitement, the greater portion of the people throughout 
the land having become so impressed with the importance of 
the principles at issue that their enthusiasm carried them 
triumphantly to the result. An immense concourse assembled 
at Washington from all parts of the country to witness the in¬ 
auguration. But the Whig party was doomed to be sadly dis¬ 
appointed. One month after entering upon his duties Presi¬ 
dent Harrison died, and, according to the Constitution, John 
Tyler assumed the office. 

Tyler failed to carry out the principles on which he had 
been elected, gradually co-operated with the Democracy, and 
was charged by those who elected him with deliberately betray¬ 
ing the trust committed to his hand. 

In order to aid in remedying the financial disorders of the 
country both Houses of Congress passed, with fair majorities, 
a bill to incorporate “The Fiscal Bank of the United States, 
which should facilitate exchanges Jjiroughout the Union.” 
From this bill was carefully eliminated the Democratic objec¬ 
tions to the old United States Bank, yet the President refused 
to give it his signature on the plea that it was unconstitutional. 
Another bill was passed, modified in its provisions in accordance 
with his own suggestions. This he also refused to sign. This 
double dealing of the President roused intense indignation in 
the party that had elevated him to the office. 

Meanwhile the compromise tariff of 1833, with its decreas¬ 
ing sliding scale, was found insufficient to produce enough 
revenue to defray the current expenses of the Government. 
Congress attempted to remedy the evil by re-enacting the 
original tariff of that year. This bill was vetoed. Another 
bill was then prepared and passed, and it met the same fate. 
P'inally a third was modified in such manner as to receive the 
President’s signature. This was the noted tariff of 1842. 
These contests between the President and the Whig majority 
in Congress continued through his administration. 

Another question which had an effect on parties was that of 
the annexation of Texas. To this the Whigs of the free-labor 
States were decidedly opposed, as it involved the extension of 


POLITICAL PARTIES : 1789-1856. 


27 


slavery, while for that reason some of the Whigs of the slave- 
labor States favored the scheme. Here was an element that in 
due time insured a change in the relations of the existing 
political parties. 

Another Presidential contest, that of 1844, was approaching, 
and the several nominations were made in the usual manner. 
The Liberty party was the first to move. Meeting in Buffalo 
(1843) it again nominated James G. Birney for President, and 
Thomas Morris, of Ohio, for the second place. 

The Whigs held their National Convention at Baltimore, 
May I, 1844. They announced their usual platform of princi¬ 
ples, together with the distribution of the surplus revenue among 
the States. They nominated Henry Clay, of Kentucky, for the 
Presidency and Theodore Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, for the 
second place. The Democratic convention met also in Balti¬ 
more on May 27th, 1844. They still proclaimed themselves 
strict constructionists, but introduced some new articles of 
political faith—one demanding the reoccupation of Oregon up 
to 54° 40' North latitude, and another the annexation of 
Texas. They nominated James K. Polk, of Tennessee, for the 
first place on the ticket and George M. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, 
for the second. The Democratic candidates were elected. 

The Whig party was, politically speaking, the lineal descend¬ 
ant of the Federal, the leaders of which introduced and carried 
out, during the first twelve years of our Nation’s life, that gen¬ 
eral policy of government which remains to this day. The 
Democratic party had its origin in the clubs formed for the 
express purpose of opposing the policy just mentioned. One 
was a party of construction and progress, the other of obstruc¬ 
tion and reaction. The Democratic leaders held their followers 
in hand by means of caucuses and conventions; the rank and 
file implicitly obeyed and voted as directed. On the other 
hand, the Whig leaders never held the members of their party 
effectually in leading-strings. In his History of Political Parties 
(pages 5 and 6) that prince of party strategists, Martin Van 
Buren, says: “For more than half a century the Democratic 
party, whenever it has been wise enough to employ the caucus 
or convention system, has been successful.” He sneers at the 


28 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


“sagacious leaders” of the Federalists, and afterward of the 
Whigs, because of this lack of success in holding the members 
of their party in the voting lines. 

A remarkable impulse was given to the diffusion of political 
knowledge by the anti-slavery agitation, which commenced 
about 1833. The vivid presentation of the subject by lectures 
and general discussions roused an interest that never flagged, 
but increased till the end was accomplished. This was espe¬ 
cially the case in the free-labor States, but in the South such 
discussions were prohibited by the influence of the slave-hold¬ 
ers, while the circulation of newspapers containing them was 
forbidden. 

When President Polk assumed office (1845-1849) the terms 
for the annexation of Texas offered by the last administration 
had been accepted by the Texas Congress, and also by a con¬ 
vention elected by the people. This movement produced pro¬ 
tests from Mexico, and threats of war on her part. A crisis 
was hastened by the advance of Gerr. Zachary Taylor with a 
military force to the east bank of the Rio Grande, thus occu¬ 
pying a territory that was in dispute. It gave occasion to the 
first conflict of the Mexican war at Palo Alto (May 8, 1846). 
The Whigs disapproved of the war, as unnecessary, believing 
the end could be secured by negotiation. But they supported 
it till its conclusion. The North saw in its Democratic and 
pro-slavery backing the subtle purpose of strengthening the 
slave-power and of committing to its maintenance and suprem¬ 
acy the whole weight of the country and of its political admin¬ 
istration. 

The President asked for an appropriation to be applied in 
purchasing territory ; this was granted, but the House inserted 
a condition “ that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude 
shall ever exist in any part of said Territory, except for crime, 
whereof the party shall be duly convicted ” (Aug. 1846). This 
was the famous “ Wilmot proviso,” thus designated from the 
name of the member who introduced it. For this proviso the 
northern Democratic members and the Whigs voted ; the bill 
was sent to the Senate, but Congress adjourned before that 
body acted upon the measure. 


POLITICAL PARTIES: 1789-1856. 


29 


The “ Proviso” has become historical, as its passage in the 
House opened up the question of slavery in a new phase. To 
this proviso may be traced indirectly the breaking up of the 
Whig party. But it led to a greater and more influential com¬ 
bination of political elements. The entire slave-labor States 
were, with one voice. Whig and Democratic, opposed to the 
proviso. The result was that the Southern wing of the Whig 
party became thoroughly disorganized, while the Northern wing 
of the Democratic was much divided. 

These discordant political elements took practical form in 
the impending Presidential canvass. On May 22, 1848, the 
Democratic National Convention met at Baltimore. It 
adopted the platforms of the two preceding conventions, and 
took care to reiterate its faith in strict construction. It nomi¬ 
nated Lewis Cass, of Michigan, for the Presidency, and William 
O. Butler, of Kentucky, for the Vice-presidency. On June 7 
the Whig Convention met in Philadelphia, and nominated 
Gen. Zachary Taylor, of Louisiana, and Millard Fillmore, of 
New York. For prudential reasons they adopted no platform. 

There had grown up among certain Nortliern Democrats 
a strong sentiment against the extension of slavery into free 
territory, hence they had voted for the Wilmot Proviso. The 
Whigs and this portion of the Democratic party were not yet 
fully prepared to take decided ground on the slavery question. 
This portion of the latter party were indignant at the harsh 
manner in which Mr. Van Buren, their favorite, had been de¬ 
nied the renomination in the Convention of 1844. Two dele, 
gations had gone from New York to that Convention at Baltk 
more which nominated Mr. Cass. Both delegations were, 
however, admitted with the understanding that the vote of 
the State should be divided between them. It happened on 
account of some dissatisfaction that the delegation that was 
opposed to the extension of slavery into free territory withdrew 
from the Convention. After the nominations just mentioned 
were made, on August 9th these dissatisfied Democrats met 
in Convention at Buffalo, and assumed the party name of Free- 
soil Democrats. They nominated Mr. Van Buren for the office 
of President, and Charles Francis Adams of Massachusetts for 


30 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


the second place. With this new organization the old Liberty- 
party at once affiliated. The Whig nominees, Taylor and Fill¬ 
more, were elected. 

Gen. Taylor was inaugurated President, March 5, 1849. 
had been elected in consequence of the withdrawal of the Free- 
soil Democrats from the main body ; Van Buren thus had his 
revenge. In less than a year Taylor died, and P'illmore became 
President. 

The Free-soilers would not unite with the Whigs, because 
the latter had rejected the principle of the Wilmot Proviso ; 
much less could they return to the old Democracy. The num¬ 
bers of the latter had been increassd by accessions to their 
ranks of pro-slavery Whigs, which made up for the defection 
of the Free-soilers. Meanwhile the Whigs as a party organ¬ 
ization were on the verge of dissolution. There was evi¬ 
dently a basis for a new political organization, the principles 
of which would be national in their character, and thus 
worthy of the support of thinking men everywhere who 
wished to unite in opposition to slavery itself or against its 
extension into free territory—the common property of the 
entire Nation. Influences were not long wanting which 
brought about the blending of these elements. 

The accession to the Democratic ranks of the pro-slavery 
Whigs gave the former unusual prestige. It induced them to 
commence a series of aggressions in support of slavery and its 
extension, which roused opposition in the free-labor States. 
Even those who had hitherto been apparently indifferent on 
the subject gradually began to array themselves in that opposi¬ 
tion. Self-constituted expounders commenced circulating the 
opinion among the slave-holders and their subservient pro¬ 
slavery friends in the free-labor States that the Constitution 
gave no authority to Congress to interfere with slavery in the 
Territories. From this followed the theory that the settlers 
therein had the sole right to control the matter. This was 
called Popular (vulgarly Squatter) Sovereignty. From this 
dogma the transition was easy to the conclusion that the Mis¬ 
souri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional and illegal, as 
it prohibited slavery north of 36° 30'; and that the people liv- 



POLITICAL PARTIES : 1789-1856. 3I 

ing in such territory had a right to establish slavery or not as 
they chose. These doctrines and the exorbitant demands of 
the pro-slavery party continued to excite discussion, and 
brought the subject before the minds of multitudes in the free- 
labor States in an entirely different aspect. The humane senti¬ 
ment abroad in these States was greatly in favor of freedom. 

In the midst of this political excitement came the Compro¬ 
mise measures of 1850, one feature of which was the fugitive 
slave law—a law for restoring to their Southern masters run¬ 
away slaves who had escaped to the free States. This law, 
because of the exceeding harshness, injustice, and the cruelty 
with which it was enforced, produced in the free-labor States 
intense indignation against the slave S3^stem itself. In the 
legislatures of a number of these States a counter-influence was 
developed in what were termed personal-liberty bills; these 
were designed to protect free negroes who might be accused of 
being runaway slaves. 

On June i, 1852, the Democratic National Convention met 
in Baltimore. The main feature of its platform was the indorse 
ment of the resolutions of 1798 ; it also laid special stress upon 
the enforcement of the fugitive-slave law. The convention 
nominated Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire for the Presi¬ 
dency, and for the second place William R. King of Alabama, 
On the i6th of the same month the Whig National Convention 
also met in Baltimore. Apparently not to be outdone, it like¬ 
wise indorsed the enforcement of the fugitive-slave law in 
equally vigorous terms. It nominated Gen. Winfield Scott of 
Virginia for the first place on the ticket, and William A. Gra¬ 
ham of North Carolina for the second. These indorsements 
of that obnoxious law by both the leading parties prepared the 
minds of multitudes in the free-labor States to take part in a 
new and future political organization, that should oppose all 
these measures. 

On August nth the Free-soil Democratic Convention met in 
Pittsburgh. It took high moral ground on slavery as a sin 
against God and a crime against man, and also vigorously de¬ 
nounced the fugitive-slave law because of its injustice. The 
Convention nominated John P. Hale of New Hampshire, and 


32 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


George W. Julian of Indiana. The election resulted in making 
Franklin Pierce President. 

In the year of this presidential election appeared a new po¬ 
litical party, its members being drawn from the two prominent 
ones, though up to the time of their sudden appearance as a 
political organization they had remained quietly in connection 
with their respective parties. From the first it was secret in its 
plans. When the members were asked concerning the nature 
of their society, they would uniformly profess ignorance, for 
they were bound by oath to keep the secrets of the order. The 
people in derision called them Know Nothings, but they them¬ 
selves wished to be known as the American whose motto 

was that “ Americans should rule America.” Their intention 
was to counteract the influence of foreigners in our elections, 
as the latter by their numbers held the balance of power, es¬ 
pecially in the cities. To obviate this, the American Party 
wished to change the time required for a foreigner to be a resi¬ 
dent of the Union before he could receive naturalization papers. 
They proposed that instead of five it should be twenty-one 
years. The organization met in secret and in like manner 
made its own nominations, or indorsed those made by either 
one of the two main parties, as the case might be, and they 
were thus able to decide a number of important elections. 

After its success in the election of President Pierce the 
slave-power appeared to be inspired with new vigor, and to act 
more arrogantly in its determination to extend slavery into 
the Territories, and to make it more stable where it already ex¬ 
isted. At this distance of time it seems that the slave-holding 
politicians, in their aggressions at this point, were almost insane. 
They were indifferent to the fact that they were thereby creat¬ 
ing throughout the free-labor States a sentiment of extreme 
enmity to the whole slave system. 

The XXXIIId Congress met December 5, 1853. In its first 
week a bill was introduced into the Senate by Senator Stephen 
A. Douglas of Illinois to organize the vast region now known 
as Kansas and Nebraska, as one Territory. The Senate was 
startled by the offer of an amendment to the effect that slavery 
was not prohibited in these Territories by the Missouri Com- 


33 


POLITICAL PARTIES: 1789-1856. 

promise. Here was a new phase of an old subject. About a 
week later Mr. Douglas introduced another bill, but so modi¬ 
fied it that, instead of one, the region was divided into two 
Territories Kansas and Nebraska. In this bill was an¬ 
nounced the theory that the Missouri Compromise was super¬ 
seded by the Compromise of 1850, and that any Territory, no 
matter how situated, either south or north of the line of 36°, 30' 
could reject or admit slavery, on becoming a State, as its inhab¬ 
itants should decide. The Senate passed this bill, but it was 
opposed by the Free-soil Democrats and Northern Whigs. It 
then came to the House, which finally passed it. May, 1854. 
This action brought about the final separation of the Northern 
Whigs from the Southern. The former assumed the name of 
Anti-Nebraska Whigs; and the latter were identified with the 
Democratic party, both North and South. 

And now the several elements outside the latter party 
were preparing to take a new departure in politics. The issue 
was reduced at last to the choice between slavery and freedom, 
a republic all free or a republic all subservient to the interest of 
human bondage. Some years were yet to elapse before this 
issue was to be definitely stated in the calm logic of Seward or 
the homely, overwhelming eloquence of Lincoln. But the po¬ 
litical forces of the country were taking shape on this line as 
surely as the water runs to the sea. The Dred Scott decision, 
unutterably shocking to the high convictions of a liberty-loving 
people, showed that there was a tribunal in their hearts higher 
than that which sat on the Supreme bench. The failure of the 
poor compromises, on which expired the last flickers of the 
genius of Webster and Clay, was the presage of the mighty 
groundswell of a tide that swept away compromise and policy 
before the resistless forces of right and justice. Henceforth 
for a generation the Democratic party was to undergo the 
humiliation of identification with a bankrupt treasury, an im¬ 
paired industrial enterprise and growth, a disintegrating 
union, a doughface surrender to Southern and slave-power ex¬ 
action, and resistance to the reconstruction of the Republic 
and to the restoration and maintenance of its high finan¬ 
cial credit and security. And henceforth was to come into 


34 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


existence and into the most glorious career ever exhibited in 
political history, the Republican party; snatching from the 
blundering, incompetent, palsied, and in some instances disloyal 
hands of its great rival the torn and imperiled Republic; pre¬ 
serving the union of her States; throttling treason ; putting 
under heel the most gigantic of rebellions; abolishing slav¬ 
ery ; making millions of bondmen free; meeting and discharg¬ 
ing every pecuniary obligation ; reconstructing the disordered 
constellation of national stars; paying an enormous national 
debt with a rapidity that has started the whole world into ac¬ 
clamations of praise; taxing its people without burdening or 
oppressing them ; reducing the exactions of taxation with ex¬ 
quisite adjustment to the necessities of the occasion ; providing 
munificently for its veteran soldiers; developing, under a sys¬ 
tem of protection to its industries and labor, its resources of 
national wealth and growth wit^ a success that has swept the 
United States beyond any other nation on the earth in these 
respects and made it a paradise of home as it is of freedom. 
This party has from the first embodied the progress, reform, 
education, and national prosperity of the people, as against 
the obstruction of all these and the reaction from them. And 
the student who examines the history of parties antecedent to 
its existence, will find that the lines on which it diverges from 
its competitor are lines which run through the whole political 
history of the Republic back to the beginning. On one side 
the narrow, strict, and retarding spirit; on the other the 
liberal, broad, and progressive spirit. On the one side the ob¬ 
structive “You can’t; ” on the other the inspiring “You can.” 
On the one side the bondage which slavery not more surely 
laid on the personal freedom of the black man than upon the 
public spirit and enterprise of his master; still later, even to 
this day, the manifestation of the same restricted spirit in 
its hesitation to give to the New South the same splen¬ 
did development of its resources which the “American 
System” has given to the North; worst of all, the violence 
that still robs, whether by force or trick, the citizen of his rights 
at the ballot-box. On the other side the reverse of all this. 
It is an ancient divergence, something that springs from the 































'i 

r ' 










•I •' 


iTj 


r Z VJ 


‘r<^ 


• % . s • 




* •# 


4 


^'•-1 


A * 


t ¥ 




■•5^' 


rf. ^^. 




••► t./ r 






!•* 




■>', 


V 


»«* 


■f/ 


* '1 . 


if f ^ 


V ’’ 1 


^,M 




1] 








j'f' 






'4' 


*' '.xi'. • 


'ti 


>' 




., ■• C:^ ^ ■ V^; > 

‘Vu. ■ '"•"' 

*• “ Hri*' ^ * , 

.m'^' ''■ 




c^. r 




r-^f* -‘Tr,* ■;. ‘‘■'-^ ’ 

n.-,'>’■■'* v-' ■• ..v'.''vliA-» 




,V 




T^r 




Ms 


#•; 




,f® . .'•‘J 








■ "‘'^:'-’V^-;';V"‘ 


v„^-t 










* . ■* -v' ■ ♦>• 

- 'A.y\ rV 


'■^.. * 4 :j 




» I 




■ V I 


kii^. 






‘i' K 




4 


'.<4* 


.-'■ 'MJ' 




itm 




?> 


^ 7/ 


V* .. 


; ’ C. 

'“V’; 




'■ :■■ '■- ^rm 


v:-' 






Vij* 




L^l 


.‘■'if'S 

^..V. ' J-'- -yij 


JS 


.'■fl 




< I 


n!rf. 


'V' 




Vt*'. 


'\'<i' 


f, 


V ;■■. 




,wr,. 


f% 


'*'l.r. T' . 


/ ' 




‘U?' t *\l i\/ '^l4 




1..^ 




A ^ fu ■ 




•V\ 


a: 


i„<.. ; •'t-.-J^y.!:*.- 






4. 







POLITICAL PARTIES: I789-1856. 


35 


constitut-onal make-up of the individual. But a growing de 
velopment brings the assurance that the lessons of the past are 
not lost; that the results of the great struggle are to be hon¬ 
estly accepted ; that the Nation is stronger than ever before in 
its great fraternity; and that, however much we may differ in 
name, history will record that as the liberal construction which 
our fathers gave the Constitution has been the accepted policy 
of the Nation, so the spirit'which in these later days the Re¬ 
publican party has infused into its national life—the spirit of 
growth and human equality—the spirit of an enlightened and 
enlivened Americanism—the spirit of Hamilton, Clay, Web¬ 
ster, Lincoln, Grant, and Garfield—is the true spirit of the 
American Republic, now and henceforward. 


36 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE REPUBLICAN 
PARTY: 1856-1888. 

By Hon. Edward McPherson, of Pa. 

In order to understand what the Republican party has 
done, it is necessary to understand the conditions which called 
it into being, the purposes to which it devoted itself, the prob¬ 
lems which successively confronted it, and the methods by 
which it proceeded to solve them. 

As a national organization it first appeared in 1856. The 
anti-slavery sentiment which it finally embodied first made 
manifestation in 1840, as a “Liberty*’ party, whichvpolled for 
candidates who had declined their nomination 7,059 votes—a 
handful in twelve of the States. 

By 1844, as a result of the proposed and pending annexa¬ 
tion of Texas with the avowed purpose of enlarging the area 
and the political power of slavery, this vote grew to 62,300 in 
thirteen States, upon a platform which demanded “ the absolute 
and unqualified divorce of the General Government from slavery, 
and also the restoration of equality of rights, among men, in 
every State.” Of this aggregate, its candidates received 
15,812 votes in New York, 10,860 in Massachusetts,'and 8,050 
in Ohio. 

By 1848, Texas having been annexed and the Mexican War 
fought, an overshadowing issue arose: Upon what principle 
should the territory wrested from Mexico be engrafted into our 
system? The “Free Democracy” planted themselves “upon 
the national platform of Freedom, in opposition to the sec¬ 
tional platform of Slavery.” They declared that “Congress 
has no more power to make a slave than to make a king; no 
more power to institute or establish slavery than to institute 
or establish a monarchy.” They accepted the issue which the 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


37 


“slave power has forced upon us; and to the demand for more 
slave States and more slave territory,” their calm but final an¬ 
swer was, “ No more slave States and no more slave territory.” 
But they “ proposed no interference by Congress with slavery 
within the limits of any State.” In that election, on that plat¬ 
form of principles, the distinctive anti-slavery vote, which had 
increased eight-fold between 1840 and 1844, now increased four¬ 
fold more and reached an aggregate of 291,263 votes in eighteen 
States. Its candidate, Martin Van Buren, a Democratic ex- 
President, cut in twain the Democracy of the Empire State, of 
Massachusetts, and of Vermont, and took the larger share for 
himself. He nearly equaled the regular Democratic vote in 
Wisconsin, and he largely swelled his vote over Birney’s in 
1844, in all the States of the North. 

By 1852, the Clay Compromise measures of 1850 had been 
enacted. They admitted California as a free State. They 
provided governments for the remaining territory acquired from 
Mexico, and gave to these governments in the Territories legis¬ 
lative power over “all rightful subjects of legislation consistent 
with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions 
of this act.” The slave trade was prohibited within the District 
of Columbia, and a new fugitive-slave law was passed which 
provided officers of the United States for its execution. These 
provisions covered all the outstanding questions in controversy, 
and were passed under the claim that they “settled” every 
existing phase of the slavery question. 

Both of the great parties of the country accepted and rati¬ 
fied them as such. The Whigs accepted them as a “settlement 
in principle and substance of the dangerous and exciting ques¬ 
tions which they embrace.” They pledged themselves to their 
maintenance and enforcement. They deprecated all further 
agitation of the question thus settled as “dangerous to our 
peace.” And they promised “to maintain this system as 
essential to the nationality of the Whig party and the integrity 
of the Union.” The Democrats declared a purpose to “abide 
by, and adhere to, a faithful execution of the acts known as the 
Compromise measures settled by the last Congress.” They 
further resolved that they “will resist all attempts at renewing 


38 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


in Congress, or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, 
under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.” 
The “Free Democracy,” under the candidacy of John P. Hale, 
advanced their lines beyond the points fixed in 1848 by the 
more sagacious Van Buren. They declared “slavery to be a 
sin against God, and a crime against man, which no human 
enactment nor usage can make right; and that Christianity, 
humanity, and patriotism alike demand its abolition.” They 
demanded the “immediate repeal of the fugitive-slave law.” 
And they declared the Compromise measures of 1850 “as a 
wholly inadequate settlement of the questions of which they 
are claimed to be an adjustment.” Upon this platform the 
anti-slavery vote fell to 155,825. The losses were very large 
except in the States of Massachusetts and Vermont, in which 
their vote was about two-thirds of that polled in 1848, when 
Mr. Van Buren limited the demand to tlife one point, “No 
more slave States and no more slave territory,” coupled with 
the other explicit declaration that no interference by Congress 
with slavery within the limits of any State was proposed. 

The election in 1852 was conclusive of the willingness of 
the country to accept the Compromise measures of 1850 as a 
“ final adjustment ” of the whole slave controversy. Of the 
3,143,679 votes cast, 2,987,854 were cast for candidates of the 
two great parties which had indorsed the “settlement.” Only 
155^825 votes were cast for the candidates pledged against it. 
While these measures were pending in Congress, public senti¬ 
ment was much divided upon them. The measures combined 
as a whole had actually been defeated in the Senate. But 
they subsequently passed both houses as separate enactments. 
A considerable portion of the governing class in the South had 
resisted them in both forms, as not sufficiently promoting and 
protecting the interests which clustered about slavery. 

Large masses of people in the North had opposed them in both 
forms, as yielding too much to a clamorous and growingly ag¬ 
gressive slavery propagandism. But the pending bills had, at 
last, become laws of the Union, under circumstances which pre¬ 
cluded the possibility of change within any reasonable period. 
Many causes combined to induce acquiescence. Whether 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


39 


wisely or unwisely passed, they were upon the statute-books, 
were in process of execution, were creating rights, were a part 
of the machinery of government. As done, the practical 
American applied to the situation the testing question: Is it 
wiser to accept what may be good in them, trusting to time for 
overcoming or modifying the evil, or to join in an agitation for 
repeal which must needs be protracted, and most probably 
futile? The popular instinct was well-nigh universal. Besides, 
this question was the only national question which threatened 
to prove a source of national weakness. Danger lurked in it, 
and the timid naturally yielded to the situation. In addition, 
there was a passionate longing for rest from these turmoils; 
and the way to reach it appeared to be the acceptance of this 
“ settlement,” to which great names had given a sort of sanc¬ 
tity. It was represented that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 
had settled the status of slavery in the unorganized territory 
purchased from France; that this Compromise of 1850 had 
settled the status of slavery in all the territory gained from 
Mexico; that, besides, all the minor issues growing out of 
slavery had also been adjusted ; and that, with this Compromise 
accepted, the country could, with confidence, look forward for 
years to restful and happy progress. This reasoning prevailed. 
The Democratic party, which had been voted out of power in 
1848, was again restored, because it appeared to be more closely 
identified with these measures and therefore more worthy to 
be trusted with the duty of maintaining them. Its candidate 
had a popular plurality of nearly a quarter of a million of votes, 
and, having carried every State but four, the enormous majority 
of 212 in the electoral college. After such a verdict, the 
country gave attention to the material interests of the hour, 
supposing that its right to “ have peace ” had been fully won. 

THE REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 

Never was confidence more ruthlessly betrayed. Within 
one year from the inauguration of the President then and thus 
elected, the country was, by his consent, involved in a more 
violent agitation than ever—one which increased constantly in 
bitterness and breadth, and which ceased not till the guilty 


40 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


cause of it was torn out of the National Constitution by a 
wronged and wearied people. 

President Pierce in his first annual message, in December, 
1853, spoke of the Compromise measures of 1850 as “having 
given renewed vigor to our institutions and restored a sense of 
repose and security to the public mind throughout the coun¬ 
try.” This was literally true. He then added this pledge : 
“ That this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, 
if I have power to avert it, those who placed me here may be 
assured.” Within two months this voluntary pledge was de¬ 
liberately broken, and the Congress was engaged, with the 
active approval of the Pierce administration, in attempting to 
repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had been 
passed under circumstances of equal solemnity with the Com¬ 
promise of 1850, and which had provided that in all that terrk 
tory of the Louisiana purchase “lying north of thirty-six degrees 
thirty minutes, north latitude, slavery and involuntary servi¬ 
tude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the 
party shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby for¬ 
ever prohibited.” For thirty years this Compromise had stood, 
and States had been admitted under it: Arkansas on the south 
of the line, Iowa on the north of it. Besides, Missouri, though 
north of the line, had at the time been admitted as a slave 
State. Thus the South had in hand two States, besides Louisi¬ 
ana, as the fruit of that compact. The North had one. And 
the time having come for the organization of territorial gov¬ 
ernments in Kansas and Nebraska, the South now proposed 
to “annul” that compact, refuse to keep its faith of 1820, 
reaffirmed in 1836 and 1845, to make it an open ques¬ 
tion whether Kansas and Nebraska should not be added to 
the Union as slave States, although by the Compromise they 
were pledged to be organized as free Territories. 

This odious breach of faith had, up to that time, been without 
a parallel in our history. They who were guilty of it winced under 
the damaging imputation. Their only excuse was the flimsy 
assumption that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a 
“monument of error,” a “beacon of warning,” and a “dead 
letter in law” which deserved to be expunged from the statute- 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


41 


book. And the country was also kindly informed that, “ in the 
progress of constitutional inquiry and reflection, it had come to 
be seen clearly now that Congress does not possess power to 
impose restrictions of this character.” 

The moral sense of the country was not appeased by these 
crafty suggestions, nor could it reconcile itself to the deception 
practiced upon it by the Pierce administration. The Demo¬ 
cratic party had solemnly promised to keep the peace on this 
question. A credulous public had believed it, though but eight 
years had passed since the same party had, under like circum¬ 
stances, showed how lightly it regarded a public pledge. 

In 1844 the Democratic party resolved that our title to the 
whole of the Territory of Oregon is “ clear and unquestionable 
that no portion of the same ought to be “ ceded to England ” or 
any other power ; and that “ the re-occupation of Oregon is a 
great American measure, which this convention recommends 
to the cordial support of the Democracy of the Union.” But 
within fifteen months after the inauguration of the Democratic 
President elected on that platform, its President “ ceded to 
England ” five degrees and forty minutes of territory to which 
this resolution and his inaugural declared our title to be “ clear 
and unquestionable.” Thereby this country lost an ocean-front 
on the Pacific extending from the northern line of Washington 
Territory half way up to Alaska, and “ ceded to England ” a 
stretch of country lying between the Pacific Ocean and the 
Rocky Mountains equal in breadth to both the great States of 
New York and Pennsylvania. The same Administration which 
meekly “ ceded to England,” in violation of its pledge, this 
splendid region on our northern borders picked a quarrel with 
Mexico about a strip of land on our southern borders, between 
the rivers Nueces and Rio Grande, and made war upon Mexico 
rather than yield a tithe of the untenable pretensions of Texas 
to ownership. The surrender and the seizure were alike made 
in the interest and at the dictation of slavery, to the body of 
which when living, and to the spirit of which since dead, the 
Democratic party has for half a century given an idolatrous 
devotion. 

Of a piece with that betrayal was this betrayal. What Polk 


42 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


did Pierce did ; and both, because the same hard master ordered. 
To it the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was offensive. There¬ 
fore that time-honored act was declared “void.” This was a 
marked decline from the policy of the fathers—from 1787 under 
Jefferson, when Congressional prohibition of the extension of 
slavery beyond limits then existing was the rule. By 1820 a 
“ Compromise” was made, and a territorial line was applied to 
the territory then in controversy. North of it slavery was to 
be prohibited. But in making this “ Compromise,” Congress 
asserted its power over the territorial phase of the question. 

By 1850, Congress declared that the territorial legislative 
power extended to all “ rightful subjects of legislation.” But by 
1854, Congress declined to make any declaration except that the 
purpose of the act of 1850, as of this act, was “not to legislate 
slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, 
but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regu¬ 
late their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only 
to the Constitution of the United States.” It proceeded to 
declare “inoperative and void” the Missouri Compromise of 
1820, which had prohibited slavery in the Territories north of 
the line of 36° 30'—the use of the words “ inoperative and 
void ” implying that the act referred to had been passed with¬ 
out constitutional authority. The declaration above referred 
to was a deceptive jumble, and was meant so to be. It lacked 
every element of distinctness and of directness. It purposely 
confounded two very different things. It treated as one two 
very different questions. It applied in terms equally to Terri¬ 
tories and to States. But the act had nothing to do with 
States, their rights and powers. It had to do exclusively with 
Territories, their rights and powers. Yet it brazenly recited 
its “true intent and meaning” as alike applying to “any Terri¬ 
tory or State.” The trick is apparent. The purpose was, by 
using the words “ or State,” to throw the admitted fact of 
slavery’s inviolability in States into the scale to strengthen the 
theory of its claimed inviolability in Territories. So tortuous 
and cunning were the methods to compass this coveted design. 

“ The people” of each Territory, like “ the people” of each 
State, were dogmatically announced as authorized to regulate 



ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


43 


for themselves all “ domestic institutions,” of which slavery 
was one. But there was upon this power one limitation. 

The action was to be subject “ only to the Constitution of the 
United States.” There inhered in this clause another difficulty. 
When, and how, were “ the people ” of a Territory held to have the 
power to exclude? Did it exist in the first political organiza¬ 
tion within it ? Did it exist in any political organization within 
it prior to the calling of a convention to make a constitution 
for submission to Congress, preparatory to admission to the 
Union? The act did not say. If not, had slave-owners a 
constitutional right to take their slaves into the Territories 
and hold them as such, under the Constitution, in the absence 
of a local law? If so, had not slavery then become in every 
sense a “ national ” institution ? And was there, therefore, any¬ 
where a practical power to prevent the turning into slave Ter¬ 
ritories all the Territories of the Union now existing or here¬ 
after to exist? These were momentous questions; and they 
came home to multitudes of people who, having no sentiment 
on the subject of slavery, had a deep personal unwillingness to 
be brought into relation with it. Yet, under this act, how 
could they escape this if they sought to make a home in any 
Territory of the Union? The question therefore became a 
practical one: Should the ‘‘ soil of our extensive domains be 
kept free for the hardy pioneers of our own land and the op¬ 
pressed and banished of other lands seeking homes of comfort 
and fields of enterprise in the New World,” or should they 
be reserved for the exclusive and repelling use of the slave- 
masters of the Union? 

There was another noticeable dishonesty in the act of 1854* 
It purported that the act of 1850, as of 1854, required the in¬ 
validation of the Missouri Compromise. This was an untrue 
assumption. “ The Compromise measures of 1850 contain no 
words to repeal or invalidate the Missouri Compromise. On 
the contrary, they expressly recognize it in the act providing 
for the cession of a portion of Texas to New Mexico.” * Be¬ 
sides, up to that period, the repeal of that Compromise had 


* Buchanan’s Administraiion, p. 28. 




44 


'I HE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


been demanded by no authority in the Union, respectable or 
other. Even Mr. Calhoun, in his extremest moments, had 
never indicated that such a measure was required as a conces¬ 
sion to either Southern pride or interest. And, as Mr. Buchanan 
declared after his retirement from office, the Southern Senators 
and Representatives who sustained the repeal of this “ covenant 
of peace between the free and slave-holding States” them¬ 
selves “ became the aggressors.” * 

THE STRUGGLE IN KANSAS. 

The direct effect of the doubt above indicated was what 
might have been expected. Congressional legislation, settling, 
by a clear provision, the law in relation to the subject of slavery 
to be operative in the Territory while it remained such, had 
been enacted as to thirteen Territories which were then thir¬ 
teen States. This uniform and prudent precedent had been 
broken. In its place was put what was called “ popular sov¬ 
ereignty.” But “ popular sovereignty” bewitchingly expounded 
in the marble halls of Congress was quite a different thing from 
“ popular sovereignty” expounded by Border Ruffians on the 
bleak plains of Kansas. Missouri, at once upon the passage of 
the bill^ roused itself to compel the establishment of slavery in 
Kansas, its immediate neighbor on the west. As soon as the 
passage of the act became known on the border, leading citi¬ 
zens of Missouri crossed into the Territory^ of Kansas, held 
“ squatter meetings,” and returned to Missouri. The resolu¬ 
tions passed and published sufficiently avouch their purposes, 
reveal their instincts, and indicate their methods. One resolve 
was that “ we will afford protection to no abolitionist as a set¬ 
tler in this Territory.” This was the “ popular sovereignty” 
idea as applied in Kansas in 1854. “ No protection.” 

These were the betwitching words with which free-State men, 
no matter from what State or section, were greeted as they mi¬ 
grated to Kansas as “ settlers.” And the men who thus greeted 
these “ settlers” were Missourians who did not propose to be 
“settlers,” except long enough to fasten slavery upon the 


* Same, p. 28. 




ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


45 


region. “ No protection.” These words have rung along all 
the years from 1854 through the Ku Klux days of 1875 to the 
present time, and they embody, better than any other phrase, 
the inner nature and the outward life of the criminal Democracy. 

No protection ” to political foes. Under this sign, and by all 
which it implies, have they conquered whatever they have gained 
since 1865. Another resolve of the Missourians who sojourned 
overnight in Kansas was that we “ recognize the institution of 
slavery as already existing in this Territory, and advise slave¬ 
holders to introduce their property as early as possible.” Like 
resolutions were passed in various parts of the Territory and in 
several counties in Missouri. At once all slaveholding Mis¬ 
souri was on its feet. The free States of the West and North 
resolved that Slavery should get no benefit from its refusal to 
carry out the Missouri Compromise. And a contest which 
finally assumed somewhat the character of a civil war made 
Kansas bloody ground. Missouri had the advantage of nearness 
and of ample means for enforcing its demands. The free States 
were distant, and could with difficulty reach Kansas at all, and 
then chiefly by going over the territory of Missouri. 

In May, 1854, the Territorial Act was passed, and soon 
after the Pierce administration sent out a governor, judge, 
and other officers. The first election occurred in November, 
1854. A delegate to Congress was voted upon. At that elec¬ 
tion, 1,114 legal votes were cast, and 1,729 illegal.* The next 
election, in March, 1855, was for members of the legislative 
assembly of the Territory. At that election, Missouri, by con¬ 
certed movement, sent armed men from Andrew County in the 
north and Jasper County in the south, and as far eastward as 
Boone and Cole counties, into every council district in the Ter¬ 
ritory of Kansas, and into every representative district save 
one. At that election, 1,310 legal votes were cast, and 4,968 
illegal.t The fraud was large, but the stake was large—the pos¬ 
session of the law-making machinery of the Territory. The pro¬ 
slavery candidates received 5,427 votes, the opposition but 791. 

* See Report of Special Committee of the House of Representatives, 34th 
Cong. ist. Sess. No. 200, p. 8. 

f See same, p. 30. 




46 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Thus Missouri chose for Kansas its first legislative assembly. 
That assembly reciprocated the favor by enacting a law prescrib¬ 
ing hard labor for not less than two yeais for any one who dared to 
discuss the question whether slavery exists or does not exist in 
Kansas. And a like penalty was imposed upon any free person 
who introduced into the Territory any book, paper, magazine, *• 
pamphlet, or circular containing any denial of the right of per¬ 
sons to hold Slaves in the Territory of Kansas. Missouri’s 
slave code was transplanted to Kansas by a stroke of the pen ; 
and a body of laws was passed which can be most fittingly 
described in the words applied to them by Senator John M. 
Clayton of Delaware. In a speech in the United States Senate 
he described them as “ unjust, iniquitous, oppressive, and in¬ 
famous.” He demanded that Congress repeal them. But 
they did not shock the steady nerves of the Pierce admin¬ 
istration, whose master-spirit was Jefferson Davis, Secretary of 
War. It threw all its influence in aid of the lawlessness which 
struck down in that Territory every muniment of liberty. For 
every such wrong ready excuse was found. For every resent¬ 
ment of it ready censure was given. The Nation was wrought 
up as it had never been, over the fraud of “ popular sovereign¬ 
ty” as thus administered; and while the contest was raging, 
the country approached the Presidential election of 1856 under 
circumstances of unusual gravity. 

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 

In that year the Republican party took in the national 
arena the conspicuous place which it had in local contests al¬ 
ready won among the political forces of the country. Its prin¬ 
ciples were plainly declared. Its purposes found no conceal¬ 
ment. They needed none. Its policies were beyond the 
possibility of misunderstanding. Not one of its principles has 
ever been abandoned. Not one of its purposes has ever been 
given up. Not a measure of its policies has ever been hid 
under a bushel. It has never made a pledge which it has not 
kept; never had a policy which was not for the public good ; 
and it never lowered its flag in the presence of a foe. Where 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


47 


it stood in 1856 it stands to-day, except as accomplished facts 
have removed issues, or as progressive measures have super¬ 
seded old forms of issues. It is, both in the purity of its doc¬ 
trines, the beneficent sweep of its measures, in its courage, its 
steadfastness, its fidelity, in its achievements and in its exam¬ 
ple, the most resplendent political organization the world has 
ever known. 

The leading features in the Platform of 1856 were: 

First. The maintenance of the principles promulgated in 
the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal 
Constitution as essential to the preservation of our republican 
institutions. 

Second. The preservation of the Federal Constitution. 

Third. The preservation of the rights of the States. 

Fourth. The preservation of the Union of the States. 

Fifth. Denial of the authority of Congress, of a territorial 
legislature, of any individual or association of individuals, to 
give legal existence to slavery in any Territory of the United 
States. Hence, opposition to the extension of slavery into 
free territory. 

Sixth. The right and duty of Congress to prohibit in the 
Territories those twin relics of barbarism—polygamy and 
slavery. 

Seventh. Arraignment of the Pierce administration, the 
President, his advisers, agents, supporters, apologists, and ac¬ 
cessories, for their high crime in Kansas against the Constitu¬ 
tion, the Union and humanity, and a fixed purpose to bring 
the actual perpetrators of those atrocious outrages and their 
accomplices to a sure and condign punishment hereafter. 

Eighth. Demand for the immediate admission of Kansas as 
a State in the Union with her present free constitution. 

Ninth. Immediate and efficient aid in the construction of a 
railroad to the Pacific Ocean. 

Tenth. Appropriation by Congress for the improvement of 
rivers and harbors of a national character, required for the 
accommodation and security of our existing commerce. 

Eleventh. Restoring the action of the Federal Government 
to the principles of Washington and Jefferson. 


48 


THli REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


The Democratic National Convention again went through 
the form of pledging that party to “ resist all attempts at re¬ 
newing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery 
question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be 
made.” It approved the principle on which the Kansas-Ne- 
braska Act of 1854 was based, viz.: non-interference of Con¬ 
gress with slavery in the Territories or in the District of Co¬ 
lumbia. It recognized the right of the people of Kansas, 
‘‘ acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of the 
majority of the actual residents, and whenever the number of 
their inhabitants justifies it, to form a Constitution, with or 
without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union 
upon terms of perfect equality with the other States.” On its 
Southern side it adopted as “ one of the main foundations of 
its political creed ” the principles laid down in the Kentucky 
and Virginia resolutions of 179 ^* On its Northern side it 
adopted the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, “ as em¬ 
bodying the only sound and safe solution of the slavery ques¬ 
tion.” John C. Fremont was the Republican candidate. 
James Buchanan was the Democratic candidate. 

At that election over 4,000,000 votes were cast, being an in¬ 
crease over 1852 of about thirty per cent. The Whig party, 
which in 1852 had polled nearly a million and a half of votes, had 
not survived that disastrous defeat, and upon its ruins in the free 
States had sprung the Republican organization, which in this its 
first campaign snatched from the victorious Democracy of 1852 
the States of Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hamp¬ 
shire, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Be¬ 
sides, it swelled in Massachusetts the Scott plurality of 8,114 to 
a Fremont plurality of 68,950, and in Vermont the Scott plu¬ 
rality of 9,129 to a Fremont plurality of 28,992. Of the sixteen 
free States, only California, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, and 
Pennsylvania remained Democratic. And of these the com^ 
bined opposition was greater than the Democratic vote in Cali¬ 
fornia, in Illinois, and in New Jersey; and Mr. Buchanan’s 
majority over the entire opposition was less than 2,000 in In¬ 
diana, and slightly over 1,000 in Pennsylvania. The total Re¬ 
publican vote in 1856 in the sixteen free States was but 46,510 




ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


49 


less than the Scott vote of 1852 in all the States. And the 
total opposition vote exceeded the total Democratic vote by 
377,629. Mr. Buchanan was thus a minority President on the 
popular vote, though he had a plurality of 60 in the Elec¬ 
toral College. Four years before, there was a Democratic pop¬ 
ular majority of 58,769, and an Electoral College majority of 
212. These figures sufficiently show the extent of popular 
discontent. There was throughout the North profound unrest. 

PRESIDENT BUCHANAN’S ELECTION. 

The repose of 1852 had passed away—not to return till, after 
four years of flagrant war, the country was brought, by Repub¬ 
lican sagacity and power, to reverse its tendencies, to forsake 
the dubious and devious paths which it had found full of pit- 
falls, and to place its feet firmly upon the bed-rock of eternal 
justice, where only can there be safety and peace. 

Mr. Buchanan had been elected. What did his election sig¬ 
nify? No one surely knew. His platform of principles did 
not definitely touch the vital point of the controversy. His 
letter of acceptance avoided it. During the campaign he 
merged himself, as he expressed it, in the platform, and he gave 
no further sign. 

The world knew what Republican policy was. It was 
precise. It contained nothing equivocal. It stood by the 
ancient landmarks. It maintained the principles of the 
uniform and unbroken precedents which had steadily treated 
slavery as a “ local ” institution having only “ local ” rights, 
as dependent for security upon “ local ” legislation, and as in 
no sense a national” institution, intrenched in the Consti¬ 
tution, and therefore unassailable, with a right of habitation 
everywhere within the Nation’s jurisdiction save where exclud¬ 
ed by constitution and law from States. On the other hand, 
the Democratic platform was, as usual, intentionally ambiguous. 
The words were that the people of a Territory were entitled to 
form a constitution preliminary to admission into the Union 
when they had the requisite population, with or without 
slavery. But that was mere truism. The pinch was whether. 
Congress having failed to declare on the subject, there was 
anywhere a local power to exclude slavery from a Territory 


50 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


while the territorial condition lasted. This, the vital point at 
issue, the Democratic jugglers shirked, lest the election of their 
nominees might be imperiled. By this familiar form of fraud 
the Presidency became theirs. But the victory was the costliest 
which slavery had ever won. For out of it came utter and irre¬ 
mediable overthrow. 

THE BRED SCOTT “ OPINION.” 

The steps in the descent were rapid. The first was the de¬ 
termination to enforce, within the Democratic ranks, that in¬ 
terpretation of the Kansas-Nebraska Act which denied to the 
people of the Territory any power while a Territory to prohibit 
slavery, and which asserted that the Constitution of the United 
States, by its own vigor, secured to every slave-owner the right 
to plant his peculiar “domestic institution ” in every Territory 
of the Union, irrespective of the local popular will. F'or this 
the aid of the Supreme Court was invoked ; and a pending case 
was made the occasion of the celebrated Dred Scott opinion. 

This “ opinion ” was pronounced March 6, 1857, on the sec¬ 
ond day after the inauguration of the newly-elected President. 
In his Inaugural, Mr. Buchanan spoke of the point involved as 
of “ little practical importance,” though, as a matter of fact, it 
involved the existence or non-existence of slavery in all the 
Territories of the Union. Therefore it involved the extension 
of slavery over all the new States of the Union. Mr. Buchan¬ 
an said that the question would be “ speedily and finally set¬ 
tled.” He did not say that he did not know how the point 
would be decided. He did not say that he knew how it would 
be decided. But, under cover of giving his own present view, he 
stated the opinion as it was actually announced two days later. 

The case was first argued in December, 1855, fifteen months 
before. Upon it the court had, by a majority in due course 
of business, reached a conclusion, and Judge Nelson was in¬ 
structed to prepare the opinion which, disposing of the case 
by an examination of the merits in the light of the facts agreed 
upon by the parties under the plea in bar of the action, affirmed 
the judgment of the Circuit Court. After the Presidential 
election of 1856, namely, on the i8th of December, 1856, a re- 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


51 


argument was, by procurement, effected ; when a majority of 
the court, under the manipulation of Mr. Justice Wayne of 
Georgia, were ‘‘ persuaded ” to change their opinion, and at 
once to hold that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the 
case, and then to decide a constitutional question which arose 
only on the plea to the merits of the action. 

The “ opinion ” held that the act of Congress (the Missouri 
Act of 1820) ‘‘ which prohibits a citizen from holding and own¬ 
ing property of this kind in the Territory north of the line herein 
mentioned is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore 
void.” The “ opinion ” further held that as Congress cannot do 
this, it could not authorize a territorial government to exercise 
the power, ‘‘ for it could confer no power on any local govern¬ 
ment, established by its authority, to violate the provisions of the 
Constitution.” Thus the desired point was supposed to have 
been reached. Control over the extension of the area of 
slavery was denied to Congress, and to any and every Terri¬ 
tory ; and its right to indefinite expansion was declared by a 
majority of the Supreme Court to be implied in the very terms 
of the Constitution. Thencefoith slavery was ordained to be 
the irreversible law of the Republic. The “ opinion ” both 
surprised and shocked the country. It did not allay discontent 
—rather increased it. It added a new element—indignation 
that the Supreme Court should have forced itself into the 
maelstrom of politics. The court was not required to go into 
it. On the other hand, it soon became known that the original 
ground taken by the court was entirely different from the 
ground finally taken by it. Republicans were indignant. But 
many who were not of that faith dissented as strongly as they 
from an “ opinion” which sought to reverse the currents of 
American thought, to overturn a line of precedents which 
stretched back to the foundation of the government, and to 
bring into contempt the opinions and acts of the Fathers and 
Founders. That this view of the facts was justified is apparent 
from the disclosure made since the death of the eminent J us- 
tice Benjamin R. Curtis, that the action of the court in first 
deciding this case upon one ground and then consenting to re¬ 
open it and deciding it upon a different and inconsistent one. 


52 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


with an evident purpose to exert their power in aid of partisan 
movements, had so destroyed his confidence in the court, and 
his willingness to co-operate with them, that he tendered to 
the President his resignation as a member of the court.* He 
did not meet with them again after the close of that term. 

From the beginning, the Supreme Court has inspired 
mixed feelings. Associated with public respect for it has been 
an anxious watchfulness—the result of a consciousness of its 
great power over the institutional development of the country. 
Thomas Jefferson, within six years of his death, compared the 
court to a body of “sappers and miners,” and criticised its 
work in “ construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a 
general and special government to a general and supreme one 
alone.” In 1822, Richard M. Johnson, a Senator from Kentucky, 
in a formal speech in the Senate, delivered fourteen years before 
his election to the Vice-Presidency, in favor of a constitutional 
amendment aimed at the powers of the Supreme Court, placed 
on record his opinion that the “history of the government 
furnishes nothing that can induce us to look with a very favor¬ 
able eye to the Federal Judiciary as a safe depository of our 
liberties.” 

President Jackson, in his veto of the Bank bill, held that 
“the authority of the Supreme Court must not be permitted 
to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in 
their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as 
the force of their reasoning may deserve.” Other like authori¬ 
ties had, in a period of years, taught the people to watch with 
jealous care the trend of that Court when dealing with ques¬ 
tions which touched the powers of the various branches of the 
government, or the rights of the people, or the security of free 
institutions. And when this tremendous stride was taken, which 
not only destroyed the power of the direct representatives of 
the whole people to determine an overshadowing question of 
public policy, but undertook, by an opinion in which but two of 
the nine judges concurred “ in all its points, reasonings, and con¬ 
clusions,” though seven of the nine concurred in the particular 


* See Curtis’s Life of Curtis, 247. 



ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


53 


judgment entered, to revolutionize public law and to give slav¬ 
ery a home in every Territory independently of the will of the 
community inhabiting the Territory, the wrath of the people 
rose against it, the Supreme Court was itself discredited, and 
the concurring judges bore, to their death, a burden of oblo¬ 
quy. The “ opinion” reacted upon the cause in whose interest 
it was made, and sharply intensified the continuing agitation. 

One cordial voice, however, greeted it. It was the voice of 
the Executive of the Nation. President Buchanan had long 
held to the view that Congress possessed the power which it 
had repeatedly exercised, and which the Dred Scott “ opinion” 
denounced. But he made haste to accept the new gospel and 
tender it to the country as a cure-all for the evils of the political 
situation. He informed Congress, February 2,1858, when trans¬ 
mitting the Lecompton Constitution, that Slavery exists in 
Kansas by virtue of the Constitution of the United States.” 
And he urged Congress to admit the State into the Union at 
once, under the transmitted constitution. On the forefront 
of that instrument was the promise that the “ right of property 
is before and higher than any constitutional sanction, and the 
right of the owner of a slave in Kansas to such a slave and its 
increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of the owner 
of any property whatever.” But the people of Kansas by a 
majority of 10,000 votes, at a special election thereon, refused to 
accept admission in that way, and they remained in a territorial 
condition until after the Presidential election of i860. The 
State was admitted January 29, 1861, under a “free State” con¬ 
stitution, and what President Buchanan in his message of Feb¬ 
ruary 2, 1858, denounced as the “ treasonable pertinacity” of 
the people in resisting the fraud and violence used to force 
slavery on them was at last rewarded. 

Meantime the contest in Kansas continued. The struggle 
for supremacy was seen to be between two widely different 
civilizations, and was marked by every form of bitterness. The 
State was, in a sense, a camp. United States troops were re¬ 
quired to preserve a semblance of order. One territorial gov¬ 
ernor after another, sent out by the Administration, found him¬ 
self unable to carry out the policy required by the Administra- 


54 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


tion, and resigned. The controversies spread to every neigh¬ 
borhood, in the North and in the South. The North smarted 
under a sense of injury, the South under a fear of loss of 
power. To the one the Dred Scott “opinion” had come as a 
blow which angered ; to the other, as a touch which incited 
lust of dominion. Under such circumstances, and in compli¬ 
cations of a portentous character, all dating from the fateful 
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, the Presidential election of 
i860 summoned the country to a momentous duty. 

THU PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF i860. 

The Republican National Convention in its declaration of 
principles did not advance beyond the lines fixed in 1856. 

In one respect it made a more emphatic utterance. In 1856 
it declared for the preservation of the “ right of the States.” In 
i860 it defined more clearly its position. It declared that “ the 
maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially 
the right of each State to order and control its own domestic 
institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essen¬ 
tial to that balance of power on which the perfection and en¬ 
durance of our political fabric depends.” It added a denunci¬ 
ation of the “reckless extravagance which pervades every 
department ” of the Buchanan administration. It pronounced 
for “such an adjustment of imposts as to encourage the devel¬ 
opment of the industrial interests of the whole country.” It 
demanded the use of the public lands for actual settlers, and a 
complete “ homestead measure.” The key-notes of its position 
were the assertion that slavery was a “ purely local interest,” 
.and the denial that the “personal relation between master and 
servant involved an unqualified property in persons.” 

The Democratic National Convention broke into two fac¬ 
tions ; but the difference was more as to persons than things. 
For the Douglas wing, after re-affirming the double-faced Cin¬ 
cinnati resolutions of 1856, added a declaration that the meas¬ 
ure of restriction imposed by the Federal Constitution on the 
power of a territorial legislature over the subject of the domes¬ 
tic relations when finally determined by the Supreme Court of 
the United States “ should be respected by all good citizens, 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


55 


and enforced with promptness and fidelity by every branch of 
the General Government.” This was regarded as an acquiescence, 
more or less frank, in the Dred Scott “ opinion.” The Breck- 
enridge wing on the other hand, distinctly denied the power 
of Congress or a territorial legislature to impair the security 
of slave “property” in any of the Territories, and as distinctly 
asserted the duty of the Federal Government in all its depart¬ 
ments to protect such rights in the Territories. 

Thus, all parties agreed as to the complete and exclusive 
control of the States over slavery within their limits. As to 
slavery in the Territories, the Republicans affirmed the Con¬ 
gressional right and duty to prohibit. The Douglas Democrats 
held to the doctrine of Congressional non-interference, and to 
a popular sovereignty power in the Territories subject to the 
Constitution as construed by the Supreme Court. And the 
Breckenridge Democrats asserted the inviolability of the slave¬ 
holders’ rights except as limited by State constitutions. A di¬ 
vided Democracy polled 2,223,110 votes. The Republicans 
polled 1,866,452 votes. A third party, “ Constitutional Union,” 
whose candidate was John Bell, polled 590,631. votes. But in the 
Electoral College, Abraham Lincoln received 180 out of 302 
votes, and was elected. He was in a minority on the popular 
vote of 947,289 votes. He carried every Northern State except 
New Jersey, in which he received four electoral votes and John 
Bell three. Douglas carried Missouri alone. Bell carried Ken¬ 
tucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, and Breckinridge the remaining 
fourteen States. Lincoln was therefore the constitutionally 
elected President, though his party was in a larger minority 
of the popular vote than any other successful candidate had 
ever been. His declared policy involved resistance only to 
the indefinite extension of slavery over the Territories of the 
Union. It involved interference with slavery in no State in the 
Union. And his election was due to divisions among his ad¬ 
versaries—divisions which were fostered by a disunion interest 
in the South with a view to produce the result which had been 
reached, and thus to furnish the occasion for secession and 
separation. Their act was doubly perfidious—an act of perfidy 
to their party, and an act of treachery to their country. 


56 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


THE SECESSION MOVEMENT. 

The election occurred on the 6th day of November, i860. 
By the 7th of November, the machinery for promoting the 
secession of all the slave States was put in motion, and by the 
18th of February, 1861, two weeks before the inauguration of 
Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States, Jefferson 
Davis had been elected and inaugurated as President of the 
“Confederate States,” had organized his Cabinet, and had pre 
pared himself for the issue which had been made by them with 
the United States. 

It is now known that this movement was not made without 
careful consideration and calculation of probable results. It is 
also known that it was made in the full conviction that 
friends of slavery in the North would not permit the new Ad¬ 
ministration to use force to overcome it. 

This conyiction was based upon personal assurances 
of which some proofs remain. For instance, there was found 
in the Mississippi home of Jefferson Davis, when captured 
by our troops, a letter from ex-President Franklin Pierce, 
written from the Clarendon Hotel, New York City, during 
the year before (on January 6, i860), in which he says 
that he has never believed that actual disruption of the 
Union could occur without blood, and that if that dire ca¬ 
lamity should come through the madness of Northern aboli¬ 
tionism, the fighting will not be along Mason and Dixon’s 
line merely, “ but within our own borders, in our own streets,” 
between those who respect their political obligations and those 
who have apparently no impelling power but that which fa¬ 
natical passion on the subject of domestic slavery imparts. 

The Democracy of Philadelphia, at a meeting on the i6th 
of January, 1861, presided over by an intimate personal friend 
of President Buchanan, two days before the election of Jeffer¬ 
son Davis as President of the Confederacy, resolved that if 
the South should separate from the Union, Pennsylvania’s 
sympathy would be “ with our brethren of the South whose 
wrongs we feel as our own.” 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


57 


Ex-Governor Rodman M. Price of New Jersey, in the 
spring of 1861, wrote to M. F. Maury of Fredericksburg, Va., 
that in the event of secession. New Jersey “would go with the 
South from every wise, prudential, and patriotic considera¬ 
tion.” A seceding Representative from South Carolina, de 
claiming for secession after the November election in i860, 
declared, amid thunders of applause by a Charleston audience, 
“ that there are a million of Democrats in the North who, 
when the Black Republicans attempt to march upon the South, 
will be found a wall of fire in the front ”—a boast to which the 
facts already stated and the editorials of such newspapers as 
the New York Herald of November 9, i860, which claimed for 
each State “ the right to break the tie of the Confederation, as 
a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation 
might repel invasion,” and the Albany Argus of November 10, 
i860, which in a contingency declared itself ready to applaud 
Southern “ resort to revolution and a separation from the 
Union,” and the speeches and action of the representative 
Democrats of New York in their meeting of January 31, 1861, 
lent every appearance of probability. 

When the secession movement began, the two Democratic 
Representatives from California openly advocated the secession 
of the Pacific Coast States and the creation of a Pacific Repub¬ 
lic. Democrats in the West openly discussed the expediency 
of organizing a Western Republic. And Fernando Wood, 
then Democratic mayor of the city of New York, in his mes¬ 
sage of January 6, 1861, suggested whether the time had not 
now come for New York City to throw off its allegiance both 
to the State of New York and to the Union, and to become 
a “ free city.” He descanted upon the commercial and 
other advantages which that city would derive from such a 
step. 

PRESIDENT BUCHANAN’S MESSAGE. 

Much of the demoralization which these suggestions dis¬ 
close was due to the position taken by the Buchanan admin¬ 
istration before the secession of a single State. That “ public 
functionary” failed to utter in his Annual Message of Decern- 


58 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


ber 4, i860, one brave word for his imperiled country. Pres¬ 
ident Buchanan claimed to honor the memory and to have 
accepted the principles of Andrew Jackson; but in consid¬ 
ering his duty he forgot Jackson’s principles and Jackson’s 
example. 

See the contrast. In 1832 a South Carolina Convention 
passed an ordinance declaring “ null and void and no law” 
the two U. S. Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832, refused to allow 
the validity of such acts to be questioned in the courts of 
that State or appealed to the Supreme Court of the United 
States, and announced that if Congress should proceed to 
enforce said acts otherwise than through the civil tribunals 
of the country to which their ordinance had denied jurisdic¬ 
tion, the people of South Carolina would proceed “ to organize 
a separate government and do all other acts and things 
which sovereign and independent States may of right do.” 

How did President Jackson meet the threat? 

He issued his proclamation of December 10, 1832, denounc¬ 
ing this ordinance “as incompatible with the existence of the 
Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, 
unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on 
which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for 
which it was formed.” He temperately refuted the theories 
on which it rested, and then said: “But the dictates of a 
high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot 
succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. 
Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their 
execution deceived you. Forcible opposition can alone pre¬ 
vent the execution of the laws, and such opposition must be 
repelled. The object aimed at is disunion ; and disunion, by 
armed force, is TREASON. Are you ready to incur its guilt ? If 
you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dread¬ 
ful consequences, but on yours may fall the punishment.” 
This was President Jackson’s response to South Carolina’s Or¬ 
dinance of Nullification. 

By December 4, i860, the U. S. district judge, district 
attorney, and marshal for South Carolina had, by arrange- 
.ment, resigned, as the like officers had done in 1832, and 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


59 


for the like reason. The actual situation was much the 
same, though the Ordinance of Secession of December 
20, i860, was then only foreshadowed, not passed. What was 
President Buchanan’s answer to the preparations for disunion 
which came to him on every gale from the South? He sent 
to Congress a Message which can be best described as a diplo¬ 
matic balance. It contained some phrases of comfort for each 
side. It contained other phrases which neither could enjoy. And 
it contained nothing tangible which either could tie to. It was 
the act of a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. He 
brought from the Virginia resolutions of 1798 into conspicuous 
concession the proposition (i) that only a “ deliberate, palpable, 
and dangerous exercise” of powers not granted by the Consti¬ 
tution would “ afford just cause for dissolving the Union.” 
This principle being admitted, the Secessionists cared little for 
his expression of opinion that the election of Mr. Lincoln was 
not a sufficient cause either in itself or in what it foreboded* 
He denied (2) that any State might at its “ sovereign will and 
pleasure secede from the Union in accordance with the Con¬ 
stitution,” apparently forgetting that the eighth resolution of 
the Cincinnati platform of 1856, into which he had merged 
himself, contained the germ of secession. It adopted as “ sound 
Democratic doctrine” the Kentucky resolutions of 1798, which 
taught that our government was a “ compact ” between States 
with no common arbiter and judge, and therefore that each State 
had the indefeasible right, as in all such ‘‘ compacts,” to judge 
both of the fact of infraction and of the “ MODE AND MEAS¬ 
URE OF REDRESS.” President Buchanan also (3) denied that 
the United States had power, by force of arms, to compel a 
State to remain in the Union—“ the Constitution not having 
delegated to Congress the power to coerce into submission a 
State which is attempting to withdraw, or has actually with¬ 
drawn, from the Confederacy.” 

The catch-phrase ‘‘ no power to coerce a State,” also 
borrowed from the Nullifying Ordinance of South Caro¬ 
lina, resounded at once throughout the country, and for 
months made an apparent public sentiment. The seceding 
South accepted ''^hh glee as an assurance of safety and 


6 o 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


success. The Union-loving people North and South heard 
it as a knell of death, while the slavery-loving Northern De¬ 
mocracy clutched it as they would have clutched a drug to 
bring them oblivion of the unparalleled difficulties which were 
gathering around their Administration. President Buchanan’s 
excuse, given five years after the fact, for not imitating the 
example of President Jackson was “that the times had greatly 
changed during the more than a quarter of a century which 
had since elapsed.” * But he does not pretend that the prin¬ 
ciples of our government or the relations of the President to 
the Constitution and the whole people had changed during 
that quarter of a century. 

As a consequence of this remarkable series of events 
there followed over the entire North the extraordinary ac¬ 
quiescence in secession schemes which was mistaken by many 
for proof that partisan passion and the commercial sense 
had extinguished patriotism, that a united country and a 
once-honored flag had lost their power to stir, and that a 
dry-rot had attacked the sources of national pride and na¬ 
tional life. This was true of the class of whom James Buch¬ 
anan was a type. And but for the incorruptible integrity of 
the “ plain people,” the day of the death of the American 
Union had then come. 

The “ common-sense ” of the people was clearer than the 
statesmanship of the President. They saw that the real ques¬ 
tion was not whether the Union had a right to “ coerce a 
State ” which was seceding or had seceded, but whether the 
Union had a right to defend itself against enemies combined to 
despoil and destroy it. 

Mr. Buchanan did not see this, because he was incapa¬ 
ble of seeing anything, in our system, but “ States.” To 
him the “people of the United States” were simply a phrase 
in a preamble. He comprehended fully the idea of indestruct¬ 
ible States. He comprehended not at all the idea of an indis¬ 
soluble Union. He saw half the truth and supposed it to be 
the whole. This was the vice of his position. He knew that 


* Buchanan’s Administration, p. 179. 



ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 6l 

the laws of the United States do not operate on “ States,” but 
on individuals. But he could not realize that it was not, some¬ 
how, possible for “ States ” to draw out from under the author¬ 
ity of the Union the individuals who lived within their bounda¬ 
ries. The theory that they could do so was, here and now, 
proved to be repugnant both to the principles and the objects, 
and destructive of the life, of the government. Yet he and 
his school preferred maintaining their theory, in the presence 
of the ruin it was working, to asserting a power in the govern¬ 
ment for self-protection which was at least equal to the asserted 
power in the States for its destruction. President Buchanan 
discarded all such suggestions. He held that the Union rested 
upon public opinion.” He claimed, therefore, “ that it could 
never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil 
war.” He held further that Congress possessed many means 
of preserving the Union by conciliation, and not the sword to 
preserve it by force. The sum of the whole matter with him, 
therefore, was that it was the duty of Congress to propose, im¬ 
mediately, an amendment of the Constitution which would 
embody in it the extreme principles of the Dred Scott “ opin¬ 
ion ” and make slavery the one dominant interest and idea in 
our system. Such was the absurd, and only, remedy proposed 
by our Democratic President. 

THE KENTUCKY AND VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798. 

Absurd as it was, it was entirely consistent with the new 
lights which since 1852 had illumined the national Democracy. 
These were the celebrated Kentucky and Virginia resolutions 
of 1798 touching the true principles of our goverment. 

They had since that time, been successively adopted at every 
Democratic National Convention, and been indorsed as “con¬ 
stituting one of the main foundations of its political creed.” 
The Kentucky resolutions explicitly define our “ government ”as 
a compact; “ that to this compact each State acceded as a State, 
and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself the 
other party;” that the “government created by this compact 
was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the 


62 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


powers delegated to itself; ” that “ wheresoever the General 
Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthor- 
itative, void, and of no force and that, “as in other cases of 
compact among parties having no common judge, each party 
has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, 
as of the mode and measure of redress.” 

The Virginia resolutions affirm the same theory of 
“ compact of States,” as distinguished from union of the 
people, and explicitly declare “ that in case of a deliber¬ 
ate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not 
granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties 
thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to inter¬ 
pose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for main¬ 
taining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, 
and liberties appertaining to them.” This statement plainly 
leaves it with the State to determine the form of “ interposi¬ 
tion” which it may choose to make for the maintenance of its 
“ authorities, rights, and liberties.” President Buchanan, in his 
message of December 4, i860, signified his approval of this 
theory of these resolutions to the extent of stating, quoting 
the very words of this resolution, that a “ deliberate, palpable, 
and dangerous” exercise of ungranted powers would “ justify a 
resort to revolutionary violence.” This admission reduced 
the difference between the secessionists and our President to a 
difference of opinion over degrees of provocation and over 
theories of justification. These resolutions of 1798 had thus 
in them the germs out of which had sprung every “ overt act ” 
which darkened the horizon of the Union during the gloomy 
winter of 1860-61. They had literally blazed the path on 
which the secessionists had gayly begun their dance of death.. 
And they had actually destroyed every old Democratic princi¬ 
ple which would have nerved Union-loving Democrats to 
help save a dissolving Union. So that, in this supreme crisis, 
of the Nation, this historic party, instead of being valiant to 
care for what had been committed to it, was a paralytic. 

It is interesting to note the date at which the resolutions of 
1798 were resurrected and made a “main foundation of Dem¬ 
ocratic creed.” It was in the year 1852. Nothing in any de- 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


63 


gree resembling them can be found in their National Platform of 
1844 or of 1848—and for an obvious reason. Up to that time 
Jacksonism had been the inspiration of that party as a whole. 
But in 1852, and thenceforth, Calhounism entered into and 
possessed it. There was another and a practical reason for the 
appearance of this resolution at that time. In 1851 there had 
been a distinct movement in the Gulf States tending toward 
secession, but it had failed because it found the Southern 
Democracy unripe on the question of provocation, and the 
Northern Democracy unripe on the question of power. Until 
both classes were sufficiently educated, no progress to a slave 
republic could be made. It was at once resolved to debauch 
the Northern Democracy. The price was their votes. The 
bargain was made. 

Franklin Pierce was nominated for President, and the 
resolutions of 1798 became a “main foundation of Demo¬ 
cratic creed.” They were a conspicuous feature in the 
Democratic Platforms of 1852, of 1856, and of i860—doing 
everywhere the purposed and pernicious work of undermining 
the national structure and preparing the way for the long- 
planned conspiracy of 1861-65.* They disappeared from the 
Platform of 1864, in the very flames of war; but there were 
men in that convention who sought to re-affirm them. They 
were voted out on the avowed ground that the Platform of 
1864 was to be limited to the one issue of surrender to the 
rebellion by a convention. To this hour, no Democratic Con- 

* Extract from letter of President Andrew Jackson to Rev.A.J. Crazvford, 
Washington, May i, 1833: “The tariff was only the pretext [for nullification], 
and disunion and a Southern Confederacy the real object. The next pretext will 
be the negro or slavery question.” 

From Thomas H. Benton's Thirty Years' View, vol. 2; “In tracing this agita¬ 
tion [slavery] to its present stage, it is not to be forgotten that it is a mere contin¬ 
uation of old tariff disunion, and preferred because more available.” 

From Henry Clay s private correspondence of 1844, p. 49^' If is perfectly 
manifest that a party exists in South Carolina seeking a dissolution of the Union.” 

From Stephen A. Douglas's last speech, Chicago, May i, 1861: “The election 
of Mr. Lincoln is a mere pretext. The present secession movement is the result 
of an enormous conspiracy formed more than a year since—formed by leaders in 
the Southern Confederacy more than twelve months ago. They use the slavery- 
question as a means to aid the accomplishment of their ends.” 



64 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


vention has expressed contrition for the unexampled betrayal 
of trust made by the Democratic party in their adoption. 
For a parallel to this, both in the treachery of it and the terrh 
ble consequences of it, the history of all parties in all nations 
will be searched in vain. 

Resting upon the assurances and opinions of the most con¬ 
spicuous Democratic authority in the Union, the secessionists, 
who had boldly seized the legislative and military power of 
six States, and were sure of immunity for the three months 
yet remaining of Democratic supremacy in the Union, pro¬ 
ceeded in the completion of their schemes of disunion. So 
that, when President Buchanan turned from his hands to those 
of his lawfully-elected successor the government of the United 
States which he had received from his predecessor, there was 
confronting it, as a direct product of his concessions, argu¬ 
ments, and assurances of December 4, i860, a hostile govern¬ 
ment which practically held most of the slave section—organ¬ 
ized under a constitution, intent upon independence, preparing 
for war, and partly prepared for war by the transfer during 
the year i860 from the Springfield (Mass.) Arsenal to Southern 
arsenals, and by advancing to Southern States their quotas of 
arms—this through the agency of John B. Floyd, President 
Buchanan’s Secretary of War, and to the extent of over 250,000 
muskets. 


THE CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION. 

The Constitution of the Confederate States was modeled 
upon the Constitution of the United States. Jefferson Davis 
in his Inaugural said that it “ differed only from that of our 
fathers in so far as it was explanatory of their well-known im 
tent.” But the number of changes, both of omission and addk 
tion, which were required to make the new instrument comport 
with their previous interpretations of the old instrument, show 
the hollowness of the pretenses made by this class for seventy 
years. In this aspect, a study of their Constitution has especial 
value. 

First. In the preamble were inserted the words, “ Each 
State acting in its sovereign and independent character.” 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


65 


Second. From the preamble were stricken out the clauses: 
more perfect Union,” “ provide for the common defense,” and 
promote the general welfare.” In place of the words, “ more 
perfect Union,” were inserted the words, “permanent federal 
government.” 

Thh'd. In the first article legislative powers were “ delegat¬ 
ed ” to Congress, instead of “granted.” 

Fourth. In the third paragraph of Art. i, and elsewhere, 
the word “slaves” was inserted instead of the words, “other 
persons.” 

Fifth. In the eighth section of Art. i a clause was inserted 
that “ no bounties shall be granted from the treasury, nor shall 
any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be 
laid to promote or foster any branch of industry.” 

Sixth. The Congress was denied the power “ to appropriate 
money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate 
commerce,” except furnishing buoys, improving harbors, and 
removing obstructions in river navigation, “ and in all such 
cases duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby 
as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.” 

Seventh. The Congress was denied power to pass a “ law 
denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.” 

Eighth. The denial of the right of States to “ grant bills of 
credit ” was struck out. 

NintJi. The “ Supreme ” Court was made a “ Superior ” 
Court. 

Tenth. Citizens of each State were given the “right of 
transit and sojourn in any State with their slaves.” 

Eleventh. The word “slave” is inserted in the “service or 
labor” clause of Art. 4, Sect. II. 

Tivefth. In the clause giving jurisdiction to Congress over 
the Territories, it was provided that “in all such territory 
negro slavery shall be recognized and protected by Congress 
and by the territorial government, and the inhabitants of the 
several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right 
to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in 
any of the States or Territories in the Confederates States.” 

Thirteenth. Every phrase was excluded which involved the 


66 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


idea of a “ Union.” Every phrase was included which involved 
the idea of a “ Confederacy.” 

And upon all this elaborate construction for the perpetuation 
of human bondage they inserted in the preamble a clause “ in¬ 
voking the favor and guidance of Almighty God.” 

This Constitution had immediate interpretation from the 
Vice-President elected under it. He declared that it had for 
its “corner-stone” the great truth that “slavery is the natural 
and normal condition of the negro.” He found the basis for 
this great truth in either “ nature,” or in the “ curse against 
Canaan.” But history explodes one of these pretenses, and 
ethnological science the other. He declared this to be the first 
government in the history of the world based upon this great 
“ physical and moral truth.” And he predicted that, though 
this “ truth ” may be slow in development, the government 
founded upon it is destined to become the controlling power 
on this continent, while the progress of disintegration in the 
old Union may be expected to go on with “ absolute certainty.” 

It is difficult to restrain a smile while reading these glowing 
prophecies. But they were not at the time regarded as vision¬ 
ary by those to whom they were addressed. Because those 
who heard them realized, on the one hand, the prodigious 
force of the power which was daily drawing towards the Con¬ 
federacy the border slave States, and because, on the other 
hand, they felt a great security against an appeal to arms in 
the attitude assumed toward them by the Northern Democracy. 

Mr. Stephens did not miscalculate as to the favorable influ¬ 
ences touching the border States. His fatal error was as to 
the probable conditions which would confront Abraham Lin¬ 
coln in the free States. The Northern Democratic masses had 
read, but had not received, the secessionism which lurked in the 
Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. They had supported in 
1852 and 1856 and in i860 Democratic Presidential candidates 
without realizing that thereby they had been counted as willing 
to be conspirators in the destruction of their country. They 
did not intend that party fealty should be taken for treachery 
to their own hearths and homes. And when the flag of their 
country was deliberately insulted at Sumter, an indignant and 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


67 


resenting patriotism drove at once to the side of President 
Lincoln the uncorrupted part of the Northern people, while 
Pierce and Price and Wood and their ilk hid themselves from the 
wrathful indignation of those whom they had betrayed. Had 
the Northern Democratic leaders perfected the work to which 
since 1852 they had dedicated themselves, actual resistance to 
the firing on Sumter would have been impossible, and disunion 
would have come, as it was expected by the secessionists to 
come, through an enervated and incapable North. 

Meanwhile the superseded Congress, at its closing session to 
which President Buchanan addressed his last message, paid 
instant attention to the condition to which the country had 
been reduced. 

Committees in each House considered the crisis, and a 
“Peace Congress,'’ organized from without, met in Wash¬ 
ington for the same purpose. The final result was that both 
Houses passed, by the 2d of March, 1861, a joint resolution 
proposing a constitutional amendment that “no amendment 
shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give 
to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, 
with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons 
held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” This was 
in substantial harmony with the Republican National Platform 
of i860; and President Lincoln in his Inaugural of March 4, 
1861, said that he had no objection to this provision of implied 
constitutional law “ being made express and irrevocable.” 

But the leaders of the secession movement scorned the guar¬ 
anty. Their answer was: “If the Republicans should give us 
a blank sheet of paper upon which to write the condition of re¬ 
annexation to the defunct Union, we would scornfully spurn 
the overture.” Thus the strife, now become incurable but by 
blood, became a legacy from the Buchanan to the Lincoln 
administration. The amendment, ratified at once by the legis¬ 
latures of Maryland and Ohio, was quickly forgotten in the 
march of events. 


68 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


PRESIDENT LINCOLN’S INAUGURATION. 

On the 4th of March, 1861, the new President asked of all 
the people calmness and deliberation. He protested that the 
security of no section should be in any wise endangered by the 
new incoming administration, and he promised that protection 
would be given to all States equally when lawfully demanded, 
for whatever cause. He expressed willingness to have a con¬ 
vention of the States to consider amendments to the Constitu¬ 
tion. He pleaded with his “ dissatisfied fellow-countrymen” to 
be friends, not enemies, adding the hope “ that the mystic 
chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot 
grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad 
land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, 
as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” In 
five weeks thereafter Fort Sumter was bombarded. It sur¬ 
rendered to the enemy on the 14th of April, 1861.. On the 
next day President Lincoln called for 75,000 troops in order to 
suppress in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Missis¬ 
sippi, Louisiana, and Texas combinations obstructing the execu¬ 
tion of the laws of the United States, which combinations are too 
powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial 
proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law. 

In the presence of this appeal. President Buchanan’s 
State-rights sophisms were forgotten, and the people of the 
North rallied with surprising ardor around the flag of their 
country. Under it they marched—nearly two and a half 
millions of them—for four weary and wasting years, to gain by 
the ultimate surrender of the Confederate armies the vindica¬ 
tion of the national authority for which they spent many 
millions of treasure and many thousands of lives. What Presi¬ 
dent Buchanan predicted could not be done was done. The 
people of the Republic proved themselves able to maintain a 
long and bloody war in defense of public life and personal lib¬ 
erty, to subdue the most powerful rebellion of all time, to pre¬ 
serve their republican institutions unharmed, to “ cement” our 
Union “ by the blood of its citizens,” and at the end of all 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS; 1856-1888. 69 

this strife to lead the people up to the point of extirpating, by 
constitutional provision, the cause of all this bitterness, of ele¬ 
vating to United States citizenship the class who were the 
innocent occasion of this tremendous conflict, and of settling 
our American civilization upon a firmer basis than it had when 
this great strain began, or ever could have had in the absence 
of this heroic surgery. 

LINCOLN AND SLAVERY. 

President Lincoln sought, in the beginning, to confine the 
issue to the single point of asserting the supremacy of the laws 
of the Union. 

But other elements quickly entered on each side of the 
line. As early as January, 1861, three months before the 
firing on Fort Sumter, “ large gangs of negroes from planta¬ 
tions “ were put to work ” by the Confederates on the redoubts at 
Mobile, and a thousand negroes were busy at Charleston build¬ 
ing batteries.” Free negroes also were employed in like ser¬ 
vice at Charleston, Lynchburg, Norfolk, and Memphis: and by 
November, 1861, over 1,400 free colored men were organized and 
reviewed by the Governor of Louisiana. As early as June, 
1861, the Legislature of Tennessee provided for receiving as 
volunteers, or for pressing as drafted men, “ male free persons 
of color” into the military service of that State, in numbers at 
the discretion of the governor. Other States, and finally the 
Confederate Congress early in 1863, provided for the service 
of slaves in certain capacities in their army. 

And in the spring of 1865, when the Confederacy was facing 
death, the Confederate Congress authorized the enlistment of 
300,000 slaves as soldiers, “ with the same rations, clothing, and 
pay as other troops.” There was added in the law the grim and 
cold proviso that “ nothing in this act shall be construed to au¬ 
thorize a change in the relation of said slaves.” As slaves, they 
were to fight for slavery, and then to be remanded to their mas¬ 
ters ! Though the ground was quaking and hope itself was flee¬ 
ing, the Confederacy piteously pleaded for the help of slaves, but 
would not consent to diminish, by the smallest fraction, the 
number of its chained and bound. No wonder, after such a 


70 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


spectacle, that the Confederacy went down amid the acclaim of 
all the nations of the earth, and that its last days lacked 
dignity, and wholly failed to inspire pity. 

On the other hand, during the summer of i86i colored 
refugees were used in the Engineer and Quartermaster and 
other Departments of the Union army. But it was not until 
the summer of 1862 that the Congress of the Union enrolled this 
class in the national forces. Thus free and slave negroes were 
from an early date employed on both sides—the Confederate 
antedating the Union authorities in this respect. As early as 
1862, when the military struggle was most stubborn and uncer¬ 
tain and there was nothing clear except prolongation of hostili¬ 
ties, Mr. Lincoln sought to detach the sympathies of the Border 
States from the Confederacy by proposing to them Compensated 
Emancipation, as had been applied in the District of Columbia. 
Mr. Lincoln then regarded that as the quickest and cheapest 
way to end the war, and besides as tending to a speedy solution 
of the slavery question in all the States. He addressed Con¬ 
gress upon the subject, and sought especially to interest in it 
the Border States’ representatives, but with indifferent success. 
Some doubted their constitutional power so to vote public 
funds. Others doubted the practicability of the plan. Others 
deemed it unadvisable. A few approved and were ready to 
co-operate. But nothing was done, and the war rolled on, 
indecisively, expensively, discouragingly. 

On the 22d September, 1862, President Lincoln, after much 
deliberation, finally reached a definite conclusion. After the 
retreat of Lee from Maryland after the battle of Antietam, he 
issued to the people a proclamation, in which he declared a 
purpose to issue, on the first of the next January, another proc- 
.lamation which would declare forever free all persons held as 
slaves in any State, or designated part of a State, the people of 
which shall then be in rebellion against the United States. He 
declared his purpose to renew at the next session of Congress 
the effort for Compensated Emancipation for the adhering 
slave States, with a view to the adoption by them of immediate 
or gradual abolishment of slavery within their respective limits. 

On the 1st of January, 1863, he i^ued the Proclamation of 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


n 


Emancipation as promised, “ as a fit and necessary war measure 
for suppressing said rebellion,” and “upon this act, sincerely be¬ 
lieved to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution 
upon military necessity,” he invoked “ the considerate judgment 
of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.” Thence¬ 
forth a decided anti-slavery direction was given to the contest 
by the armies and Congress of the Union. 

Compensated Emancipation for the Border States having 
been declined, the President and his party advanced, in 1864, 
to the position of Emancipation for all the States without Com¬ 
pensation. 

In February of that year the Thirteenth Constitutional 
Amendment was reported to the Senate, which, three months 
thereafter, passed it by a vote of over six to one. The 
exact vote was—yeas 38, nays 6. In the affirmative with the 
Republicans were the two “ war ” Democratic Senators from 
Oregon. The six negative votes were cast by “ irreconcil¬ 
able ” Democratic Senators from California, Delaware, Indiana, 
and Kentucky. But the movement received a check in the 
House of Representatives, which had been chosen in the fall of 
1862 under the depression of military failures, and in which the 
Democratic contingent was a large element. The vote on pass¬ 
ing the amendment was taken on the I5tb day of June, 1864, 
and resulted—yeas 95, nays 66, not voting 20—not two thirds 
in the affirmative. A motion to reconsider this vote was 
entered, and the subject went over till the next session. 

LINCOLN’S RE-ELECTION. 

Meanwhile, on the 7th of June, 1864, Abraham Lincoln was 
renominated. In the third resolution the Convention declared 
that, as slavery was the cause and now constitutes “ the strength 
of this rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, 
hostile to the principles of republican government, justice and 
the national safety demand its utter and complete extirpation 
from the soil of the Republic,” and that they favored an amend¬ 
ment of the Constitution such “ as shall terminate and forever 
prohibit the existence of slavery within the United States.” 

The Convention further approved the determination of the 


72 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Government of the United States “ not to compromise with 
rebels, or to offer them any terms of peace except such as may 
be based upon an unconditional surrender of their hostility and 
a return to their just allegiance to the Constitution and laws of 
the United States.” 

These two distinct and broad issues were tendered to the 
American people. The Democratic Convention met nearly 
two months later, and, on the 30th of August, nominated 
General George B. McClellan for President. Their platform 
declared “ unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Consti¬ 
tution.” They “ explicitly declared ” that, after four years of 
failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, “justice, 
humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immedi¬ 
ate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to 
an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, 
to the end that at the earliest practicable moment peace may 
be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States.” 

“ Unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution ” 
was understood to mean a covert declaration of unwillingness 
to amend the Constitution, as proposed by the Republicans; 
and an “ ultimate Convention of the States ” was understood 
to mean a purpose to confer with those then in arms against 
us as to the terms on which they would agree to return to 
their places in the Union. It was strongly suspected then that 
this cunning suggestion had its inspiration in Richmond, which 
was then quaking under the deadly blow the Union armies 
were dealing. What was then suspected is now known. As 
lately as October of last year, it was divulged by the Baltimore 
Sun, the leading Democratic newspaper of Maryland, that the 
unwillingness of the Democracy of Maryland in 1864 to support 
for President, General McClellan who had violently dispersed 
their legislature in 1861, was removed by the assurance from Rich¬ 
mond that the “ South wanted some one to give them terms, 
and that the Democratic party would deal very differently with 
them from the Lincoln administration ; and that the Democracy 
of Maryland yielded its resentment towards the candidate in 
the hope and for the purpose of aiding its suffering friends south 
of the Potomac. This is literally true.” 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


73 


On which the keen remark was made, by one of the parties 
to the controversy which caused this exposure, that the Demo¬ 
crats of Maryland in 1864, “ under the guise of exercising their 
rights as citizens of the United States, were actually secretly 
obeying the instruction of the armed enemies of the Federal 
Government.” 

President Lincoln’s letter of acceptance “ heartily approved ” 
the resolutions of the Convention. 

General McClellan’s letter of acceptance interpreted the 
Democratic platform. He said, “ The Union is the one condi¬ 
tion of peace ; we ask no more.” 

This clearly excluded the idea of any change of Consti¬ 
tution as antecedent to, or concurrent with, return to the 
Union. It was, besides, set forth that the Convention which 
was to be held should guarantee for the future the consti¬ 
tutional rights of every State. This could mean only that 
the “ Union ” was to be restored as it was, including protection 
to slavery by all branches of the government. On these lines 
the McClellan campaign was made. The Prof. Morse commit¬ 
tee in New York gave its strength to proving the divinity of 
slavery and the necessity of saving it, and circulated in large 
numbers Bishop Hopkins’s celebrated “ Bible View of Slavery.” 

While the Democratic Campaign Committee, also in New 
York, in their publications arraigned Abraham Lincoln for six¬ 
teen distinct offenses, from treason to thimblerigging,” in¬ 
cluding specifically perjury, bribery, forgery, and the like.* 

They denounced him as exercising power with the reckless¬ 
ness of Bomba, and as “ surrounded by more dangerous men 
than haunted the ante-rooms of the imbecile Louis XHI.” 
They compared him with Louis Napoleon. It was charged that 
Napoleon “shed some blood to get power, violated some oaths, 
broke some pledges.” But they charged that Napoleon broke 
not half so many as Abraham Lincoln. Napoleon was chided 
for “ shedding rills of blood.” Lincoln was denounced for 
“ pouring rivers of blood.” That nothing possible to be said 
to Lincoln’s disparagement should remain unsaid by the repre- 


* For all this, and more, see Campaign Documents Nos. i and 13. 



74 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


sentatives of the Democratic party, the despotism of Jefferson 
Davis was described as “ an educated, intelligent, and respect¬ 
able despotism that of Abraham Lincoln, as a vulgar and 
debasing despotism.” McClellan and Lincoln were compared— 
“ Hyperion to a Satyr.” Thus they raved till the morning of 
the election. 

The country was not deceived by these tactics. It was not 
in favor of restoring slavery to its position of mischief-maker; 
and it had faith that the Government was now on the path to vic¬ 
tory and ehduring peace. It re-elected President Lincoln by 
giving him 212 of the 233 votes composing the Electoral Col¬ 
lege. McClellan carried the three States of Delaware, Ken¬ 
tucky, and New Jersey. Lincoln had a popular majority of 
over 400,000. 

The result produced consternation in the Confederate Cap¬ 
itol. The authorities there saw in it not merely the triumph 
of the Union arms, but the doom of slavery itself. From 
July, 1863, they had expected the former; up to November, 
1864, they relied on the Northern Democracy to save them 
from the latter. But this “ Spartan band,” whose existence 
was gratefully recognized on the floor of the Secession Conven¬ 
tion of South Carolina in December, i860, proved in 1864 as 
unable to defeat President Lincoln’s re-election, and to save 
slavery, as it proved unable or unwilling in 1861 to redeem its 
pledges of the previous year to prevent the marching of troops 
over Northern soil for the “ coercion ” of seceding States. As 
a “ Spartan band ” it had proved itself lacking in virility, not 
malignity. 


THE ANTI-SLAVERY AMENDMENT. 

The Republicans came to Washington after the election of 
1864 flushed with their great victory; and on the 31st of Jan¬ 
uary, 1865, the Anti-slavery Amendment, which had failed in 
June, 1864, by a vote of 95 to 66, was passed through the House 
of Representatives by a vote of 119 to 56, being 7 votes more 
than the required two thirds. On this vote, the three “ war 
Democrats ” of the previous vote were re-enforced by 13 other 
Democrats who acquiesced in the popular verdict. They with 
































ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


75 


103 Republicans made up the affirmative. The 56 negatives 
were “ irreconcilable ” Democrats. The six absentees were all 
of the Democratic party, presumably willing to have the 
Amendment submitted. 

In the debate, the opposition resisted the measure on the 
triple grounds of the unfitness of the time, the impropriety of 
the thing, and the want of power in “three fourths of the 
States ” to make such an amendment. Mr. Pendleton, the Vice- 
Presidential candidate on the ticket with General McClellan, 
elaborated these points as well in the debate of June, 1864, as 
of January, 1865. He, holding the extreme State-rights view, 
regarded our government as a “ compact of confederation,” 
and the “ Federal Government ” as “ the agent of the States.” 
He affirmed the doctrines laid down in the Kentucky and Vir¬ 
ginia resolutions of 1798 ; denied the power of “ three fourths 
of the States, or all the States save one, to abolish slavery in 
that dissenting State ”—and he found this exclusion of power, 
not in the clause of the Constitution defining the right of 
amendment, for it confessedly is not there, but in a duty we 
owed not to subvert the form and spirit and theory of the 
government! This argument, for a strict constructionist, was 
rather broad, for it required that the ingenuity of 1865 should 
supply the thing forgotten by the framers in 1789. Their 
exclusion of certain amendments was plainly a permission of 
all others on which the necessary two thirds of Congress and 
three fourths of the legislatures could agree. 

Public sentiment had come slowly to the point of adopting 
this amendment. 

In the earlier years of the war suggestions in this direc¬ 
tion met no general response—rather roused opposition. The 
people yet hoped for peace without abolition. But events 
clarified vision. As sacrifices continued, perception of right 
grew clearer. As anxieties increased, the public more will- 
ingly considered remedies which promised permanent relief. 
And, finally, as the enormity of the crime of the secession 
movement dawned upon and found lodgment in the mind of 
the Union-loving people of the country, and as the struggle 
was, finally, plainly seen to be between two irreconcilable 


76 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


civilizations and policies, there was a gravitation to the convic¬ 
tion that no victory for the Union would be a complete com¬ 
pensation for the vast cost of the war, which did not involve as 
signal a triumph for the principle of liberty as for the senti¬ 
ment of union. And as the people contemplated the final over¬ 
throw of slavery, there was added comfort in the thought that 
it was what had demanded the sword which now was to perish 
by the sword. 

Hence, by 1865, the amendment was received by the coun¬ 
try with more than acquiescence. It excited genuine enthusi¬ 
asm. It was regarded by the loyal masses as pre-eminently the 
civic act most fitting to mark the close of the military struggle. 

It was ratified by all the legislatures then in session, except 
by the Democratic legislatures of Delaware, Kentucky, and New 
Jersey, which last State at a subsequent election chose a legis¬ 
lature which reversed this vote and ratified the amendment. 
Ultimately, thirty-six legislatures—some of them of the re¬ 
constructed States—voted on the question. Twenty-seven 
voted affirmatively, and on the i8th of December, 1865, it was 
proclaimed as having become a part of the Constitution. And 
this was done over the solid opposition of the Democratic 
party in the various State legislatures. This beneficent act is 
now the praise of all lips. Even the South expresses a sense 
of indescribable relief, as it bounds forth under the stimulus of 
a new life. All agree that it has vastly served the cause of 
national unity, of national strength, and of national regenera¬ 
tion. But it ought not to be forgotten, in this universal paean, 
that no credit, or portion of credit, for this result attaches 
to the men who controlled, or to the ideas which dominated, 
the Democratic party. They stood by slavery to the last. 

While this amendment was pending in Congress, the Con¬ 
federate authorities turned inquiring eyes towards the success¬ 
ful Lincoln. Peace through the McClellan convention was 
not now possible. At Hampton Roads, on the 3d of February, 
1863, they tested Lincoln as to the conditions of peace. He 
gave three: (i) The restoration of the national authority 
throughout all the States; (2) No receding by the Executive of 
the United States on the slavery question from the position 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


/ / 

assumed thereon in the late annual message to Congress, and in 
preceding documents; (3) No cessation of hostilities short of 
an end of the war and the disbanding of all forces hostile to the 
government. 

Three days thereafter, Jefferson Davis denounced these 
terms in a public meeting in Richmond as a “gross insult 
to be spurned with indignation.” Their next device was 
an appeal from the re-elected President to Grant, the vic¬ 
torious leader of our armies. Within a month from the 
Hampton Roads conference. General Lee proposed to General 
Grant a “ military conference,” to consider a “ satisfactory ad¬ 
justment of the present unhappy difficulties.” Lee announced 
himself as clothed with extraordinary power “ to do whatever 
the result of the proposed interview may render necessary or 
desirable.” The purpose was to dethrone the civil autliority 
of the United States and settle the issue by a military conven¬ 
tion. Grant referred the proposal to Lincoln, who advised 
Grant to hold no “ conference” with General Lee except for 
“ capitulation,” as the “ President holds in his own hands all poli¬ 
tical questions.” What was purposed by this may be inferred 
from the terms which constituted the text of the Sherman- 
Johnston agreement. As the Confederate Cabinet deliber¬ 
ated upon these terms, they can be safely accepted as what that 
Cabinet then desired. They stipulated for a guaranty of the 
political rights and franchises of the Confederates, and “ for their 
rights of person and property as defined by the Constitution 
of the United States and of the States respectively.” These 
terms are suggestive for their comprehensiveness ; but they were 
disapproved. Johnston’s army was then surrendered without 
political conditions, and the war was closed without complica¬ 
tions touching slavery or other political question. 

Thus repeatedly foiled, yet still not without hope, the Con¬ 
federate authorities in control of their State organizations re¬ 
sorted to a new expedient. They would defend slavery and its 
incidents behind the bulwarks of the State governments they 
controlled. The Confederate governors of Georgia, Mississippi, 
South Carolina, and Texas hastened to summon their legisla¬ 
tures, with the evident purpose, upon renewing in an oath their 


78 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


pledge of loyalty to the United States, to assert their authority 
as legislators as indicated in Art. III. of the Sherman-Johnston 
agreement,* and to resist encroachment upon the status quo. 
But President Johnson comprehended the purpose, and, not 
yet captured by the Confederates, prohibited the meeting of 
the legislatures, and within a month superseded all, and im¬ 
prisoned one or more, of these governors. And thus the way 
was made clear for the Presidential plan of restoration which 
was declared, defined, and executed between April and Novem¬ 
ber, 1865. 

PRESIDENT JOHNSON’S RESTORATION POLICY. 

The old Congress had expired forty days before the surren¬ 
der, and the new Congress could not meet unless called by the 
Executive. The new Executive was Andrew Johnson, who, in 
the sudden consciousness of unexpected and extraordinary 
power, preferred that his will should stand in place of law. He 
formed a plan of restoration. It involved the appointment 
by himself of a “ provisional governor” for each of the insurrec¬ 
tionary States, and the election under his authority on the old 
basis of white suffrage, excluding a few classes, of conventions 
to make new constitutions and effect, thereby, proper practical 
relations between those States and the Union. The President 
indicated four conditions which he desired observed by these 
State Conventions: 

(1) Ratifying the constitutional amendment to abolish 
slavery. 

(2) Repudiating the State debts created in aid of the Re¬ 
bellion. 

(3) Annulling the Ordinances of Secession. 

(4) Extending the elective franchise in their States to those 
colored male negroes who could read and write, and to those 
who owned and paid taxes on $250 worth of real estate. 

President Johnson soon met quiet but firm resistance in 
several quarters and on several points. The conventions ex- 

* The recognition by the Executive of the United States of the several State 
governments, on their officers and legislatures taking the oath prescribed by the 
Constitution, 



ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 79 

pressed willingness to abolish slavery in their States “ be¬ 
cause already destroyed as an act of war by the United States/' 
but they expressed reluctance to ratify the proposed constitu¬ 
tional amendment because that would aid in abolishing slavery 
in other States. But, under decided pressure from the Presi¬ 
dent, this objection was finally waived and ratification voted^ 
though coupled in several cases with the suggestive condition 
that such amendment “ does not confer upon Congress power 
to legislate upon the political status of freedmen in those 
States,” and with a reservation by Georgia of a right to claim 
compensation. 

The seco 7 id condition was partially conceded—Mississippi 
and South Carolina alone declining. 

The third condition was refused by the South Carolina and 
the Georgia conventions, which voted to repeal their 
Ordinances of Secession, thus avoiding a denial of the right 
to pass them. 

And the fourth condition, that on colored suffrage—which 
struck the nerve-centre—was treated with contemptuous silence 
by all of them, though it was reinforced by piteous appeals or 
passionate remonstrances from mass-meetings of colored per¬ 
sons held in those capitals. When it is remembered that the 
conventions which made this record were chosen by the Presi¬ 
dent’s authority alone ; that to them he was the sole represen¬ 
tative of the power of the Union ; that he gave the pardons 
which enabled many of the members to sit; that yet not one 
of his suggestions was frankly and fully met; and that the 
most important of all, though plainly asked, was unitedly dis¬ 
regarded with undisguised purpose of hostility, it became evi¬ 
dent, if it ever could have been doubted, that the Confederate 
South had then formed a fixed purpose to take back into 
the Union not only all the representative power they had 
before secession, but the increased power which would 
come from the representation as freemen of the two fifths 
formerly excluded as slaves. In a word, they purposed to profit 
by their rebellion, to be more powerful in the restored Union 
than they were in the Union from which they seceded, and to 
wield, through their own exclusive suffrage, the representative 


8 o 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


power of both their white and colored populations. This pur¬ 
pose of theirs is the key to the situation as it then existed, as 
it has been steadily maintained, and as it now exists. 

Why those conventions declined, without exception, even 
to consider President Johnson’s demand for a qualified suffrage 
for colored persons, clearly appears from an examination of 
the “ Freedmen’s Codes” enacted by the State legislatures dur¬ 
ing the fall of 1865 and the spring of 1866, the provisions 
of which embody the views and purposes of the then governing 
classes in those States. 

One spirit pervades all; and the details of one will 
answer for the others. Take for illustration Mississippi. 
All freedmen over 18 years of age found on the second 
Monday in January in each year without lawful employment 
or business, or found unlawfully assembling themselves to¬ 
gether by day or night, and all white persons so assembling or 
usually associating with freedmen on terms of equality, were on 
conviction to be fined—the freedmen fifty dollars each and im¬ 
prisoned ten days, the whites to be fined two hundred dollars and 
imprisoned at the discretion of the court. The fines of the freed¬ 
men if paid were to go to the general purposes of the county; 
if not paid, the sheriff was to hire the delinquents to any 
person who for the shortest period of service would pay the 
fine and costs, preference to be given to the employer, if any. 
The poverty of the freedmen was made a charge on themselves, 
and a tax of one dollar a year was imposed on each, between 
18 and 60 years, for a “freedmen’s pauper fund;” and if this 
tax was not paid, each delinquent was to be arrested and hired 
for the tax and costs. All the freedmen under 18 were to be 
apprenticed till 21 and 18 respectively, the former owner to 
have the preference. No freedman was permitted to rent any 
lands or tenements, except in incorporated towns or cities, in 
which places the corporate authorities were to control the 
same ; and if he lived in a city or town or incorporated village 
he was required to have a license from the mayor, or if outside 
the town, from the member of the board of police of the beat 
—such license to be revocable for cause at any time. Any 
freedman keeping any fire-arms or ammunition was to be 


ITS RISE AM) PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 81 

fined; and any freedman exercising the functions of a minister 
of the Gospel without a license from some regularly-organized 
•church was to be liable to a fine and imprisonment. The only 
provision for educating freedmen was in Florida, where schools 
were to be established in counties in which the number of 
children would warrant it and the fund derived from the tax 
of one dollar on each male freedman between 21 and 55, and 
the tuition fee, would be sufficient to meet expenses. 

The codes of South Carolina and Virginia were such that 
General Sickles and General Terry set them aside in orders. 
These deliberate enactments of the purposes of the Confederate 
South created, outside of that jurisdiction, a mixed feeling of 
surprise and horror. When considered in connection with the 
previous action on Emancipation, Rebel Debt, Secession, and 
Qualified Suffrage, they cast a lurid shadow over the situation, 
and convinced both the Congress and the country that the 
measures of the President had wholly failed to bring safety or 
to do justice, and that before the offending States could pru¬ 
dently be re-clothed with the power of local control and 
national representation new guards against the abuse of both 
must be put up. 

ACTION OF THE THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. 

The new measure was the Fourteenth Amendment of the 
Constitution. It passed Congress finally on the 13th of June, 
1866, and had four principal features: 

I. The citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the 
United States. 

II. Apportioning representatives according to population 
in the States; but when the right to vote is denied by any 
State to any of its male inhabitants being twenty-one years of 
age and citizens of the United States, the basis of representa¬ 
tion therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the num¬ 
ber of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of 
male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 

III. Disqualifying for office those participants in the Re¬ 
bellion who formerly had taken an oath to support the Consti- 


82 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


tution of the United States—Congress reserving the right, by 
two thirds vote, to relieve the disability, 

IV. The public debt shall not be questioned ; but no debt 
incurred in aid of rebellion, nor any claim for the loss or eman¬ 
cipation of any slave, shall be paid. 

This amendment was intended to broaden the basis of 
American citizenship, by admitting into it the whole colored 
population of the country—the stirring declaration of its first 
section being the answer of the Union to the Freedmen’s 
Codes described, and the formal repudiation of the principle 
which underlay the Dred Scott “ opinion.” 

The two stand in strong and significant contrast. The Con¬ 
federate South proposed to hold the late slaves as an excep¬ 
tional, separate and dependent class, and to keep them a home¬ 
less and landless one. The Union proposed to make all of them 
American citizens, sharers with their late owners in the equal 
right to life, liberty, and property. But the amendment 
touched suffrage only negatively. It reduced the representa¬ 
tion of a State in the proportion in which the State disfran¬ 
chised male adults. In so far, and only so far, it operated to 
induce the States to confer the suffrage upon all male adults. 

TPIE MILITARY RECONSTRUCTION ACT. 

The amendment went to the people in the fall of 1866. It 
was rejected by the legislatures of but three of the twenty- 
seven adhering States, viz., the Democratic States of Delaware, 
Kentucky, and Maryland. It was rejected also by the legisla¬ 
tures then existing under President Johnson’s authority in the 
ten insurrectionary States. The eight-ninths vote of the adher¬ 
ing States was thus overborne by the solid negative of the 
Confederate South, with three allies. What was to be done? 
Acquiesce in the defeat; maintain the status; or apply the 
only remaining remedy of which the case admitted r Congress 
got the answer of the last of the Confederate States in P'eb- 
ruary, 1867. It gave its answer in March, 1867, in the prompt 
passage by overwhelming vote of the Military Reconstruction 
Act; and manhood suffrage became at once an operative force. 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: I 856-1 888. 


B3 

By it, ratification,,restoration, and representation soon came, 
and the “ Freedmen’s Codes” and the other debris of the Presi¬ 
dent’s plan were swept aside by the application of equal 
principles embodied in new governments and enforced by new 
agents. 

This act applied to the “ rebel States of Alabama, Arkan¬ 
sas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, 
Texas, and Virginia,” and was justified on the ground that no 
legal State governments, or adequate protection for life or 
property, existed in them. The bill was passed, by much more 
than a two-thirds vote, over the veto of President Johnson, 
who was in no mood to enjoy seeing his “ Restoration” swept 
aside. 

This act disfranchised those who, having previously taken an 
oath to support the Constitution of the United States, had en¬ 
gaged in the Rebellion. It gave suffrage to the male citizens of 
those States, 21 years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or 
previous condition.” These were authorized to vote at elections 
for delegates to conventions to frame constitutions of gov¬ 
ernment, to be “ in conformity with the constitution of the 
United States in all respects.” And the presence in those 
constitutions of provisions conferring the franchise as fixed in 
the act, the adoption of those constitutions by a majority of 
the persons voting thereon, and the ratification of the Four¬ 
teenth Amendment by the legislatures elected under said con¬ 
stitutions, were made the conditions on the fulfillment of which 
said States should become entitled to representation in Con¬ 
gress. This act—the parent of manhood suffrage in the 
United States—created between 700,000 and 800,000 voters 
and doubled the electorate in those States. The new voters 
were up to that time without experience in either national, 
State, county, or municipal affairs. Entirely untrained, they 
were at the moment of enfranchisement, and had been for cen¬ 
turies without their consent, a “laboring, landless, and home¬ 
less class.” Clothing them suddenly with the large power 
which their numbers represented was, and was conceded by 
those who did it, to be a portentous step. But it was taken, 
upon great deliberation, in full view of its probable and possi- 


84 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


ble results, and only after it had been incontestably proved 
that the form of reconstruction agreed upon, with remarkable 
unanimity, by the law-making power of the Union could not 
be obtained in any other way. 

Events previously noted had limited that Congress to one 
of three courses: 

(1) An indefinite military occupation and administration of 
those States now become sullenly resistant; or 

(2) An abandonment of effort to secure the guaranties 
which the adhering States believed to be both wise, just, and 
indispensable ; or 

(3) The creation of the only local power which was capable 
of controlling the political action and giving the assent of those 
States to the terms offered by the triumphant Union. 

The first was for many reasons offensive and objectionable, 
and if ever seriously entertained was soon abandoned as a 
policy. 

The second was impossible to the men who had seen and 
felt the coming of the War and the War itself, who realized 
what produced it, what it threatened, what it cost, and what 
was due to the rights which the struggle had created. 

The third was slowly and reluctantly accepted as the only 
solution yet possible after the refusal of the then dominant in¬ 
terest in those States to accept the principles touching citizen¬ 
ship and suffrage which distinguished the Fourteenth Amend¬ 
ment. It is not uncommon to hear that colored suffrage was 
forced upon a patient, submissive, and powerless South.” 
This is historically untrue. It was forced upon a Confederate 
South united to defeat, having actually defeated, the ratifica¬ 
tion of the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis of re-union. 

THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1 868. 

The Military Reconstruction Act was enforced during the 
summer of 1867, and during the next twelve months the States 
of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North 
Carolina, and South Carolina were admitted to representation 
in Congress, they having ratified the Fourteenth Amendment 
and complied with the conditions required in the act. 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


85 


Pending the execution of this measure, the Presidential elec¬ 
tion approached. The Republicans nominated Ulysses S. Grant, 
the Democrats Horatio Seymour. The Republicans, in their 
platform, congratulated the country on the assured success of 
the reconstruction policy of Congress, and pledged themselves 
to sustain that policy and prevent anarchy in the lately rebel¬ 
lious States. The Democracy, become by training skillful in 
complaint, denounced “ the Reconstruction Acts (so called) of 
Congress, as such, as usurpation and unconstitutional, revolu¬ 
tionary, and void.” They declared that under repeated assaults 
by the Republican party “ the pillars of the government are 
rocking on their base,” and that “ should the Republican party 
succeed in the election and inaugurate its President, we will 
meet as a subjected and conquered people, amid the ruins of 
liberty and the scattered fragments of the Constitution.” 

These words were intended to be an overwhelming assault 
upon the party and policy of Lincoln and Grant. But they 
created rather amusement than indignation. 

The last time the Democratic party had been heard from— 
four years before—it was clamoring for a convention in order 
to permit our Constitution to be cut into such fragments as 
armed enemies might dictate—for a convention to submit our 
institutions of “ liberty ” to such mutilations as avowed de¬ 
fenders of slavery might demand as the price of peace. 

The pillars of the government were at that time actually 
rocking on their base; and then it was that the Democratic 
organization declined to help hold them up, but insisted on 
first seeing whether those who were trying, with their assent, 
to batter them down would think they were any longer, under 
any circumstances, worth supporting. The professions of 1868 
Were thus rather ridiculous in the light of the surrender of 
1864. The people properly rated as trash this magniloquence; 
ns Letters and fumers these pretenders. And they gave Grant 
ti popular majority of 309,584, and an electoral majority of 134. 
In this count is included for Seymour the State of New York, 
which, it was suspected then and is believed now, was given to 
Seymour, not by the actual will of the voters, but by the un- 


86 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 


scrupulous power of the “Tweed Ring” which had control of 
the count. 

Grant was elected. He served four years. He was re¬ 
elected and served four years more. Yet from him or his party 
the Constitution of his country, which he had risked his life to 
defend and upon whose life it had staked its right to live, re¬ 
ceived no blow. Nothing was taken from it. What was added 
to it was merely the cap-stone required to perfect its symmetry. 
No “scattered fragments” of it blocked the path of progress 
on which the Nation trod in a development absolutely without 
parallel in all the history of nations. Nor did any “ ruins of 
liberty ” suffice to call to halt, even for a moment, this mighty 
people as it built up waste places, strengthened weak places, 
settled our purified and widened institutions upon immovable 
foundations, paid the debt of the war, brought England to 
settlement for her offenses against neutrality, and, by wisdom 
and skill and honorable dealing with all questions, placed the 
country upon a very pinnacle of honor. 

Such is the reply which history makes to the vaporings of 
the Democratic National Convention of 1868. 

THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

But the enfranchisement of colored male citizens for pur¬ 
poses of reconstruction under the Military Reconstruction Act, 
and subsequently by provisions in the new constitutions of 
those nine States, led logically to the enfranchisement of that 
class in all the States. 

I.i some of these States they had long had suffrage. But 
in most of them they had never had suffrage. In order to 
give equality and universality to this right, the Fifteenth 
Amendment was proposed by Congress and adopted by the 
legislatures. The subject was considered during much of the 
last session of the Fortieth Congress, and by a committee 
of conference was finally brought into the shape in which 
it passed. The vote in the House of Representatives, 
February 25, 1869, was over three to one for it (144 to 44); 
in the Senate, the next day, exactly three to one (39 to 13). 
Not a single Democrat in either house supported it. The 


ns RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


87 


whole power of that party resisted it in the State legislatures. 
But it received approval of the necessary number, and on the 
30th day of March, 1870, it was formally declared to be a part of 
the Constitution. President Grant deemed the occasion of its 
ratification worthy of a special message, in which he pro¬ 
nounced this a “ measure of grander importance than any other 
one act of the kind from the foundation of our free govern¬ 
ment to the present day.” Its pregnant words were that “ the 
right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be 
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on 
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” 

In the States of the North the right thus conferred has 
been freely conceded, and the new electorate has taken its 
place at the polls. 

In the States immediately south of the old border line the 
right has been more grudgingly conceded. 

In the States of the Gulf the right has been practically an¬ 
nulled. In them a new nullification has been organized. The 
rights given in the Fifteenth Amendment are, within them, paper 
rights—not actual rights. The fact of suppression is admitted. 
The excuse is that such suppression is necessary to the domina¬ 
tion of the white race in those States, and to the maintenance 
of what they call their “ civilization.” So the election frauds of 
1855 in Kansas were justified as necessary to the maintenance 
of the “ civilization ” of which slavery was the crown and jewel. 
A “ civilization ” always exists. A desire to have power, also, 
always exists. It is convenient for those who enjoy a “ civiliza¬ 
tion ” and who luxuriate in power to be able to harmonize 
their love of both with a supreme desire to oppress and a vindic¬ 
tive desire to show contempt for a hated constitutional pro¬ 
vision. In the Gulf States Democratic majorities for President 
and on Congress are no longer won. They are manufactured. 
Government of the people in them is overthrown. Govern 
ment of a class is in its place, and that “class” the “class” 
which prides itself on its high “ civilization.” The achievement 
is its form of vengeance upon the Union for slavery abolished 
and for slaves enfranchised. 

This suppression of the colored vote has had its stages. 


88 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Its first stage was one of violence, bloodshed, and terrorism. 
Some startling accounts of these methods are appended,* for 
they deserve to be remembered as a part of our present “ civili¬ 
zation.” These were done to get local control of those com¬ 
munities and States. With that accomplished, artful fraud,, 
in the shape of cunning enactments executed by unscrupulous 
agents, has made permanent the fruits of the original crime. 

As illustrating these devices for maintaining control, it may 
be mentioned that in Louisiana elections for State and county 
officers are held but once in four years, though the legislatures 
so chosen meet biennially. In that State, Georgia, Alabama, and 
other States, elections for State officers are held at different 


^Extracts from General Philip H. Sheridan's reports from New 0 rlea 7 ts 
January 4 “ It is with deep regret I have to announce to you the exist¬ 
ence in this State of a spirit of defiance to all lawful authority, and an insecurity 
of life which is hardly realized by the general government or the country at large.’' 

January 5.- “I think that the terrorism now existing in Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Arkansas could be entirely removed, and confidence and fair¬ 
dealing established, by the arrest and trial of the ringleaders of the armed White 
Leagues.” 

1S75, Janua 7 'y 10 ,* “Since the year 1866 nearly thirty-five hundred persons, 
a great majority of whom were colored men, have been killed and wounded in 
this State. In 1868 the official record shows that eighteen hundred and eighty- 
four were killed and wounded. From 1S68 to the present time no official inves¬ 
tigation has been made, and the civil authorities in all but a few cases have been 
unable to arrest, convict, and punish perpetrators. There is ample evidence to 
show that more than twelve hundred persons have been killed and wounded 
during this time on account of their political sentiments. Human life in this 
State is held so cheaply, that when men are killed on account of political opinions, 
the murderers are regarded rather as heroes than as criminals in the localities 
where they reside, and by the White League and their supporters.” 

Extract from President Gra 7 it's Message of fuly 31, 1876.- “In regard to 
Louisiana affairs, murders and massacres of innocent men for opinion’s sake, or 
on account of color, have been of too recent date and of too frequent occurrence to 
require recapitulation here. All are familiar with their horrible details, the only 
wonder being that so many justify them or apologize for them.” 

Extract fro 7 n President Gra 7 it's Letter to Governor Chamberlain of South Car- 
olma^July 26, 1S76 .• “ The scene at Hamburg, as cruel, bloodthirsty, wanton, un¬ 
provoked, and as uncalled for as it was, is only a repetition of the course that has 
been pursued in other States within the last few years, notably in Mississippi and 
Louisiana. Mississippi is governed to-day by officials chosen through fraud and 
violence, such as would scarcely be accredited to savages, much less to a civilized 
and Christian people.” 



ITS RISE AND PROGRESS; 1856-1888. 


89 


dates from elections of Representatives in Congress and Presi¬ 
dent, so as to avoid the presence at the polls, in State elections, 
of U. S. supervisors and marshals of opposite political parties, 
who are authorized to be appointed with a view to secure a fair 
election and an honest count and return. 

In South Carolina, the State elections, though held on the 
same day as national elections, have the ballot-boxes in different 
places; there is a ballot-box for each officer voted for; each 
voter is required to assort his ticket into these various boxes; 
any ticket dropped into the wrong box is annulled; and the 
person in charge of the election poll is permitted^ not required, 
to assist electors in distributing their tickets. Thus, the law 
makes easy a defeat of this right by imposing on the voter the 
duty of distributing the ticket to the various boxes, and making 
a mistake on such distribution work a defeat of his vote. 

In most of these States tax and registering provisions are 
made intentionally perplexing and arbitrary, so as to diminish 
the poll. All this infernal enginery is manifestly intended to 
defeat the free exercise of the right of suffrage, by wearying 
out the proscribed class. When allusion was recently made 
in the Senate of the United States to some of these methods, 
Senator Eustis of Louisiana replied: “ It is none of your 
business.” 

This defiance from Louisiana had scarcely died away when 
a voice from North Carolina made clear the object. It was the 
voice of the Governor of the State, General Alfred M. Scales, 
late of the Confederate Army. In a speech before the Demo¬ 
cratic State Convention, at Raleigh, May 30, 1888, he is reported 
as saying that “ however much the Democrats of this State were 
divided over the tariff,'the internal revenue, the Blair [educa¬ 
tional] bill, and the best means whereby to get rid of the 
surplus, they were united on the question that this was a white 
man’s government and white men must rule it. He said this 
was THE question of questions; that it had kept the South 
solid since 1876, and would keep it so in this campaign.” 

This is equal to saying that the black man, notwithstanding 
his constitutional right of suffrage, is to be pressed as closely 
and tightly to the wall as possible, and that the rights given 


90 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


by the Fifteenth Amendment are to be nullified as completely as 
possible. 

A “ white man s government.” This is the familiar lingo of 
slavery’s days, yet living in the mouths of Southern Democrats, 
who purchase from Northern Democrats acquiescence in all 
which it implies, by the political power which these crimes bring 
with them. This conspiracy against free representative govei n- 
ment and against a plain provision of the Constitution of the 
United States recalls the like conspiracy, between the same 
parties, in 1852, 1856, and i860, whereby the Kentucky resolu¬ 
tions of 1798 were, in consideration of electoral votes, injected 
into the Democratic National Platform, and made the basis of 
Democratic faith. 

Nevertheless, the right to the suffrage remains. Those 
entitled to it remain. The right cannot always be denied. 
Those who have the right cannot be driven from the country. 
There will come a time when the present shame will be wiped 
out, when men will be regarded as dishonored who profit by 
such crimes, and when the Democratic party will no longer 
consent to accept power by means which bring turpitude with 
victory. Probably they will amend their ways, after they shall 
have had full time to outgrow the debauching influences of 
slavery which have for forty years besmirched their career and 
which yet beslime their character. 

The result is that the Confederate South has, by 1888, gained 
all for which from 1865 to 1867, as it was emerging from re¬ 
bellion, it made a stand. 

Then it arrayed its States solidly against, and defeated, the 
modified suffrage which was at first proposed, but was after¬ 
wards under their frown abandoned, by President Johnson. 
It was an unbroken phalanx against the Fourteenth Amend¬ 
ment because that made the enlarged or diminished representa¬ 
tion of the States to depend upon their conceding or denying 
male colored suffrage. And it has, as to themselves, paralyzed 
the Fifteenth Amendment, which was presumed to have given 
universality and permanence, reality and sacredness, to this in¬ 
valuable right. 

The definite purpose of the Confederate South formed in 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS; 1856-1888. 


91 


1865, that when restored it should wield the whole represen¬ 
tative power of those States by force of its own ballots only, 
and without division or diminution, has been achieved. It 
was unable by force of circumstances to prevent the ratification 
of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was also unable, for the 
same reason and at a later date, to prevent the ratification of 
the Fifteenth Amendment. But by the unit of its pow'er, and 
the help of allies who, sharing in benefits from its crimes, wink 
at the guilt, both of the amendments have in their widest 
sphere of operation been reduced to the smallest proportion 
of results. They are as vessels of honor turned by hating 
hands into vessels of dishonor. Their prohibitions and their 
grants have alike become words without force or virtue. Their 
prohibitions fail to prevent. Their grants fail to confer. And 
the penalty imposed for violation is as sounding brass and a 
tinkling cymbal. 


LINCOLN’S PROBABLE ACTION. 

Such having been the fate of Johnson’s defeated plan of 
restoration, and such the result of the Congressional plan of 
reconstruction, including the amendments, the interesting 
inquiry arises, What form would the solution of this problem 
have probably taken had Lincoln been permitted to meet the 
responsibilities of this trust ? 

Was the Johnson plan of restoration substantially what 
Lincoln’s would have been ? 

Here the ground is less solid than that we have been tread¬ 
ing. But certain conspicuous facts permit a reasonably cer¬ 
tain answer. Assuming what may not be improbable, that 
Lincoln would not have called Congress together in the 
summer of 1865, but would have essayed restoration upon his 
own ideas, it would follow that the form of it would in that 
event have been similar to Johnson’s, but the substance of 
it essentially different. Nor is this a matter of conjecture. 
This subject absorbed much of Lincoln’s thought, and on 
it he had a distinctly traceable growth. In 1863, when his 
mind was first engaged with the problem of reconstruction, 
he gave the public his present impressions.” They are in 


92 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


his Amnesty Proclamation of December 8. He was then in¬ 
tensely anxious for peace, and made advances to get it. He 
asked for the colored population ‘‘ permanent freedom” and 
“ education,” but was prepared to concede as a temporary 
arrangement ” a system of apprenticeship in the hope that 
through some such practical method the two races could be 
lifted out of their old relations and be prepared for the new. 
For he then had in mind and expressed his sense of the ‘‘ con¬ 
fusion and destitution ” which would attend a total revolution 
of labor throughout whole States. Apprenticeship was 
thus to serve as a bridge. 

But by the time he came to the stream—sixteen months 
later—he found that the bridge was entirely inadequate, so 
clarifying had been the logic of rapidly-occurring events. In 
his last speech, April ii, 1865, he discused the “ Free State* 
Constitution of Louisiana,” then pending, and said of the 
absence from it of colored suflrage that he would himself 
“ prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, 
and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.’’ There is a 
wide space between “ apprenticeship ” for all and “ suffrage” 
for some, but Lincoln traversed it between those dates. To 
suppose that this special man, of deeply-rooted and daily 
strengthening anti-slavery convictions, with deep desire to ex¬ 
tract from the great convulsion a “just and lasting peace” for 
his country, would, with such an opportunity, have failed, if 
he had been thwarted as his successor was, to employ every 
resource of diplomacy and tact, his inflexible purpose and high 
resolve, for the imbedding in the Constitutions of those States 
and of the Union masculine provisions whose principles, it is 


*In marking Lincoln’s growth, his letter to Governor Hahn of the “ Free 
State” movement is valuable. It is dated March 13, 1864, and says, touching 
the suffrage clause for the new constitution : “I barely suggest, for your pri¬ 
vate consideration, whether some of the colored people may not be let in, as, 
for instance, the very intelligent and especially those who have fought gallantly 
in our ranks. They would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep 
the jewel of liberty in the family of freedom. But it is only a suggestion, not 
to the public, but to you alone.” This was written only five months after his 
Amnesty Proclamation of Decembers, 1863. 




93 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 

known, had the approval of his judgment and his conscience 
is to do equal violence to probabilities and proofs. 

Undoubtedly, he would have been content with nothing 
less than a large and ever-widening measure of suffrage. That 
he would have imperatively required immediate manhood 
suffrage cannot safely be asserted, though there is evidence 
that he was rapidly gravitating to universal amnesty and 
universal suffrage as a basis for re- union. But there is no 
reason to suppose that when confronted by the perils which 
compelled the Thirty-ninth Congress to impose on the insur¬ 
rectionary States manhood suffrage, he would have rejected the 
only remedy remaining. But whether the ultimate result 
would have been materially different from that which has ac¬ 
tually occurred would have depended less upon the purpose of 
Lincoln or the will of the whole people than upon the willing¬ 
ness of the Confederates to carry out in their States in good 
faith the conditions on which their restoration to the political 
power which they had once ruthlessly abused had been made 
dependent. For, under our system, it is hard to influence the 
people of the States, in their ordinary political action, except 
by the moral arguments which are based upon conscience and 
duty. 


A RETROSPECT. 

Looking back thirty-four years, it is instructive to observe 
the line by which the nation has moved, from its situation in 
1854 to its vastly-changed situation in 1888. These facts are 
manifest. 

The Compromise measures of 1850 had left slavery in a 
more secure position than it had occupied since the agitation 
over it began. 

The territorial questions had, all of them, been definitely 
settled—each, as it had arisen, by an adjustment of limits, 
or an application of principle which was agreed upon at the 
time of acquisition and was then more or less completely 
executed. There was no point open, and none debatable, ex¬ 
cept whether at a future time slavery should not be abolished, 
with or without compensation, in the District of Columbia, 


THE REPUBLICAN I’ARTY. 


9 ^ 

and whether the fugitive-slave law might not be modified 
as to a minor detail or two, or possibly repealed. There was 
not enough in either issue to keep a party alive. The country 
had settled down into absolute acquiescence in the settlement 
which bore the sanction of such names as Clay and Webster, 
of Fillmore and Badger, of Benton and Cass. The anti-slavery 
leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives felt the 
ground slipping from under their feet. Their disappearance 
from public life had already begun, and their general supersed- 
ure was a question of but a few years. Their work was be¬ 
lieved by themselves to be over, when a suggestion made in 
recklessness, in February, 1854, and adopted from ambition, 
changed the whole face of affairs, and amazed the country by 
the repudiation and annulment of the Missouri Compromise 
of 1820 at the moment when the free States of the Union 
were about to come into the enjoyment of the benefits it had 
promised. 

This contract of 1820 had about it every element of sacred¬ 
ness which could be given by great names, by lapse of time, 
by portentous circumstances attending adoption. The terri¬ 
tory of Kansas and Nebraska was undoubtedly a part of 
the territory which its terms were declared and designed to 
cover. Nothing was lacking to make clear the breach of faith 
which was intended, or the purpose of it. And when, through 
the connivance of the Pierce administration, whose chief in so 
doing broke his pledged word to the whole people, this act of 
treachery was actually done, the whirlwind was let loose. The 
whole controversy, territorial and constitutional, was opened 
up. Popular agitation. North and South, sought to seize and 
hold Kansas. The “ rights ” of slavery, which conceded no 
rights to freedom, were questioned at all points. In despera¬ 
tion the Supreme Court was called in to assert and define them. 

Public opinion divided into three great classes, and the peo¬ 
ple divided into three great political bodies. Lincoln’s election 
to the Presidency followed. Then, secession and rebellion. 
Then, the war and emancipation. Then, the Fourteenth 
Amendment and its rejection. Then, reconstruction and the 
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Then, to give com- 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


95 


pletencssto all which had preceded, the Fifteenth Amendment. 
This was the series of events, each logically following the other, 
and in the series making and marking the broadest, quickest, 
and most far-reaching change in institutions known to history. 

In all this the record of the Republican party has been 
without a stain. In i860 it sought and expected no resistance 
to a fair election of its candidate. In 1861 it sadly accepted 
what was forced upon it. In 1865 it would have been content 
with emancipation and citizenship and qualified suffrage, but 
was defiantly refused these three necessary securities for the 
future. In 1869 it pledged itself to manhood suffrage be¬ 
cause no honorable adjustment was then possible without it. 

On the other hand, what is tlie record of the Democratic 
party? In 1854 it d .ihonorably made itself a party to the 
breaking of the pledge of 1820—therein breaking its own pledge 
of 1852. In 1861 it unpatriotically stood, smiling and com¬ 
placent, in the very presence of secession and rebellion. In 
1864, as if wearied with its burden of assumed unionism, it de¬ 
manded surrender to rebellion. In 1865, false to every instinct 
of liberty, it resisted the initial act of emancipation, before 
which the darkness of ages is vanishing, as fog before the sun. 
And from 1868 to 1888, false to every instinct of a true democ¬ 
racy, it has steadily resisted equality of citizenship and equality 
of suffrage, and alone found pleasure in the oppression of the 
weak and the spoliation of the unprotected. In no re¬ 
public, ancient or modern, has any party ever made itself so 
worthy of the scorn of the generous and the just. 

THE FINANCIAL RECORD OF THE PARTIES. 

The Lincoln administration inherited from the Buchanan 
administration a bankrupt treasury and an impaired credit, as 
well as an armed rebellion. 

It is a suggestive commentary on the sort of government 
w'hich the Democratic party was wont to give the country 
in its halcyon days, that for the four fiscal years preced¬ 
ing June 30, 1861, the ordinary revenues had been inade¬ 
quate to meet the ordinary expenditures. In the fiscal 


96 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


year 1858 the ordinary revenues were $46,655,365.96; the or¬ 
dinary expenditures, $72,291,119.70—a deficit of over twenty- 
five millions. In the fiscal year 1859 ordinary revenues 
were $53,486,465.64; the ordinary expenditures, $66,327,405.72 
—a deficit of thirteen millions. In the fiscal year i860 the or¬ 
dinary revenues were $56,054,599.83 ; the ordinary expendi¬ 
tures, $60,010,112.58—a deficit of four millions. All these years 
were years of peace. In the fiscal year ended June 30, i86r, 
the ordinary revenues were $41,476,299.49; the ordinary ex¬ 
penditures, $62,537,171.62—a deficit of twenty-one millions. 
The latter half of this fiscal year covered the opening move¬ 
ments of secession. During these four years the government 
ran in debt about sixty-three million dollars. How was this 
annually recurring deficit met? By the cowardly policy of issu¬ 
ing treasury notes. 

Mr. Speaker Carlisle in his speech in the House of 
Representatives on May 19, 1888, felicitates the Demo¬ 
cratic party upon the fact that during the entire existence of 
the tariff of i846-’57 the administration was able to borrow 
money, giving five per cent interest, without paying a premium 
for it. 

As the last twelve years of this period were peaceful 
years, the wonder is, not that the Government of the United 
States was able to sell its interest-bearing notes or bonds at 
par, but that it was required to sell them at all. Why 
were the expenditures not kept within the revenues ? Why 
were the revenues not enlarged so as to meet the expendi¬ 
tures? What ought to be said of a fiscal policy which in ordi¬ 
nary times and for years together does not make both ends 
meet? What would be the common judgment of the capabil¬ 
ity of a trustee who conducted on that principle the business 
confided to him ? Treasury notes were not intended to be the 
daily support of the government. They had their origin and 
their justification in the War of 1812. Repeated resort to 
them in times of peace by the Democratic party as an alterna¬ 
tive to adequate taxation is to its discredit, and is one of the 
many proofs and illustrations of its cowardice through a career 
in which it showed no courage except in support of the slave 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


97 


system and all its inventions. Borrowing money, rather than 
imposing needed taxes, has always been its characteristic sub¬ 
terfuge. 

Besides, during the period of uncertainty as to the next 
Presidential election, the Slave Power had a special motive to 
acquiesce, as it saw revenue fall off and debt pile up. By so 
much it was rendered less anxious about the activities of the 
future. 

So, for four years, it had gone on borrowing, until the pub¬ 
lic debt on the 30th June, i860, was $64,769,703.08. 

Of this debt nearly twenty millions were treasury notes which 
had been issued at various times since 1857, which were 
past due. When, after the election of Mr. Lincoln in i860, 
the secession movement was developed, a panic ensued. Bid¬ 
ders for a public loan, made in September, i860, hesitated to 
carry out the contract. The overdue treasury notes came into 
the Treasury rapidly for redemption. 

Howell Cobb, Secretary of the Treasury, reported to 
Congress in December, i860, that those not yet due were 
being paid in for customs, thus depriving the government 
of its principal source of revenue. He added that the 
necessities of the Treasury demand prompt action.” He 
asked for authority to issue more treasury notes, and that 
the “ public lands be unconditionally pledged for their 
ultimate redemption.” He gave as the reason for issuing 
more treasury notes “ that capitalists in the present condition 
of the country seem unwilling to invest in United States stock 
at par,” and that the “ remaining sum of eleven millions cannot 
now be negotiated upon terms acceptable to the govern¬ 
ment.” The pledge suggested by Mr. Cobb would have been 
a futile pledge. The pledge which the country wanted was 
precisely the pledge which Mr. Cobb could not and would not 
give—an assurance of fidelity to his trust. While his previous 
bids were awaiting final execution he wrote letters to New 
York discrediting the bonds and expressing doubt whether 
they would ever be paid. And within one week after making 
to Congress his annual report he resigned his place in Presi¬ 
dent Buchanan’s Cabinet—“ his duty to Georgia requiring it.” 


98 


THE REPUISLICAN PARTY. 


His immediate successor, Philip F. Thomas, on December 
28, i860; asked for bids for $5,000,000 of six-per-cent treasury 
notes. But half that amount were offered, and they at a rate 
of discount ranging from seven to thirty-six per cent. By the 
middle of January, 1861, John A. Dix of New York having 
become Secretary, the discount for the remainder of the loan 
ranged from eight and a half to fifteen per cent. And by the 
middle of February $8,000,000 more were sold at an average of 
$100 for about $90.50. With such brilliancy of financial record 
the Buchanan administration went out. 

The War came, and with it the public debt grew. By June 
30, 1861, it had become, less cash in the Treasury, $87,718,- 
060.80. It bounded on from $505,312,752.17 on June 30, 1862, 
to $1,111,350,737.41 in 1863, to $1,709,452,277.04 in 1864, to 
$2,674,815,856.76 in 1865, reaching by August 31, 1865, the 
maximum aggregate of $2,756,431,571.43. Twenty years there¬ 
after, when the executive control passed to Democratic hands, 
this enormous aggregate had been reduced to $1,375,352,- 
443.91, or about one half. The annual interest account, which 
was in August, 1865, $150,977,697.87, had fallen to $47,014,- 
133 in 1885. And meanwhile both tariff and internal-revenue 
taxes had been reduced at the rate of about $360,000,000 a 
year, making as the basis of calculation the business of the 
country as it existed when the respective reductions were 
made. In other words, if taxation as it existed in 1865 had 
remained untouched, and if the general business of the country 
had continued to be no larger than it was in 1865, the Treasury 
would have received $360,356,354 a year more than it did re¬ 
ceive, and the whole existing debt could have been paid many 
years ago. The Treasury which the new Democratic adminis¬ 
tration received from the retiring Republicans in 1885 was as 
striking an illustration of the genius and patriotism of the Re¬ 
publican party as the Treasury of 1861 was proof of a very 
different character in the Democratic party. 

The world has not yet ceased wondering at these results, 
which so great an observer as Bismarck has pronounced the 
“ most illustrious of modern time.” * 


* Witness the splendid tribute from Bismarck: “The success of the United 



ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


99 


What were the means by which the Republican party 
wrought them out ? The secret is, the Republican party by its 
directness, frankness, and fidelity challenged the respect and 
won the confidence of the country, and impressed itself upon 
the people, who were anxious to give trust, that it was worthy 
to receive trust. As a consequence, the people gladly accepted 
it as their representative, poured their money into the public 
treasury, and made the public cause their personal cause. For 
this they had had under Democratic administration no induce¬ 
ment. 

In the beginning. Secretary Chase announced as his funda¬ 
mental maxim that “ taxation” was necessary to the extent of 
the ordinary expenditures, the interest on the public debt, and 
for a sinking fund for the gradual extinction of the principal. 
And “ taxation” substantially adequate to these ends was im¬ 
posed. He denied that perpetual debt was of American 
nativity. He insisted that it should not be naturalized. He 
maintained that every debt should be provided for when it was 
created, and that “ if the exacting emergencies of war con¬ 
strained to temporary departure from the principle of adequate 
taxation, the first moments of returning tranquillity should be 
devoted to its re-establishment in full supremacy over the 
financial administration of affairs.” The issues of paper made 
were of a variety: bonds payable in 20 years; bonds payable in 
40 years; 7.30 treasury notes redeemable in 3 years ; treasury 
notes redeemable in 2 years; treasury notes redeemable in i 
year; certificates of indebtedness running i year; temporary 
loans for not less than 30 days; postal currency; fractional 


States in material development is the most illustrious of modern time. The 
American Nation has not only successfully borne and suppressed the most 
gigantic and expensive war of all history, but immediately afterward disbanded 
its army, found employment for all its soldiers and marines, paid off most of its 
debt, given labor and homes to the unemployed of Europe as fast as they could 
arrive within its territory, and still by a system of taxation so indirect as not to 
be perceived, much less felt. Because it is my deliberate judgment that the 
prosperity of America is mainly due to its system of protective laws, I urge 
that Germany has now reached that point where it is necessary to imitate the 
tariff system of the United States.” 



100 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


currency; “greenbacks.” The rate of interest on bonds and 
notes ran from 7.30 to 4 per cent. 

The taxing power went hand in hand with the borrowing. 
Increased rates of customs duty largely swelled those revenues, 
and a comprehensive internal-revenue taxation was devised 
which, from 1862 to 1887 inclusive, has produced the enormous 
sum, exclusive of commissions, of $3,557,127,756. 

Coincident with these measures was the plan for giving 
the people a stable currency. Prior to 1861 the bank-note 
circulation was issued by about sixteen hundred private cor¬ 
porations organized under the laws of thirty-four States. 
These corporations had a “ circulation, commonly, in the 
inverse ratio of solvency,” causing great fluctuations and heavy 
losses in discounts and exchanges. Secretary Chase proposed 
in his report of December 9, 1861, that these corporations be 
brought into a national system ; that they deposit as security 
for circulation a proper amount of United States stocks; 
that they receive from the United States in return an equiva¬ 
lent amount in notes bearing a common impression and 
authenticated by a common authority, and that they be re¬ 
deemed by the institutions to which they may be delivered for 
issue. It was urged that by wise legislation the great transi¬ 
tion from a currency heterogeneous, unequal, and unsafe to 
one uniform, equal, and safe may be speedily and almost im¬ 
perceptibly accomplished. Besides, the system had the advan¬ 
tage of furnishing a demand for, and permanent investment in, 
several hundred millions of bonds of the United States. This, 
however, was not accomplished till the spring of 1863, and it 
represented by April, 1865, the bonds which secured a circula¬ 
tion of $146,927,975. 

By these various enactments the necessary funds for main¬ 
taining the war were provided. 

The tariff duties for the four fiscal years ending with June 
30, 1861, averaged $46,031,270.71 a year. In the next five 
fiscal years they averaged $96,881,421.03 a year. The gain 
in this kind of revenue during those five years over the pre¬ 
ceding average in four was a little over fifty millions a year. 
This amount was the measure of annual good which can be 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. lOI 

credited to that legislation. The internal-revenue taxes levied 
during the same period produced up to 1866, inclusive, over 
six hundred and sixty-six millions of dollars. The cash gain 
to the Treasury from 1861 to 1866, inclusive, from those two 
sources, was thus eight hundred and sixteen millions of dollars. 
The gain to the country was beyond computation. These 
many millions were the basis on which rested the whole fabric 
of treasury credit. They were the indispensable means to the 
maintenance of the armies of the Union. 

It is a suggestive and mortifying yet actual fact that the 
Democratic Senators and Representatives in Congress were ar¬ 
rayed in almost solid opposition to all this tariff and internal- 
revenue legislation of 1861,1862, and 1864. Likewise, they were 
unwilling to assist in establishing the national banking system 
in 1863. This supersedure of the various State banking systems 
by a national banking system had for its primary object the 
strengthening in a critical period of the position of the national 
treasury. To make United States bonds the basis of the note 
circulation of banks was to insure a large demand for United 
States bonds, of which demand they were in great need. Be¬ 
sides, taking the banks out from under State control into 
national control was to insure for the government the help of 
these institutions, many of which had been unfriendly and had 
thrown out treasury notes at the first sign of trouble. The act 
was proposed and passed, not at all as a favor to the banks, but 
as an aid to the United States. To the people it has been a 
vast beneficence. It goes without saying that the Democracy, 
in Congress and out of it, were in no mood to approve such a 
measure. They violently disapproved it. Opposing it made 
complete their opposition to all the great tax and money 
measures of the war. 

They were much too shrewd to oppose the passage of bills 
authorizing loans or bills making appropriations of money. 
They had no objections to loans or appropriations per se; and 
they did not pant for a direct issue with the soldiery and other 
creditors of the nation. Their opposition took the more covert 
and more effective form of voting against all the taxation 
which would raise revenue and form a basis of credit,, and ail 


102 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


the laws which would supply soldiers to our depleted 
armies. 

In the case of every such proposition they had a difficulty. 
The taxes levied were too high, or they were not properly ad¬ 
justed to each other, or, forsooth, they were not collectible by 
officers appointed by the proper authority. So they could not 
vote for the Enrollment Acts of 1863 and 1864, because there 
was no constitutional power to raise “ forced levies” for an 
army of volunteers, and because coercion by means of such an 
act would be an “ unconstitutional mode of coercion.” As a 
result of this series of convenient scruples, it came about that 
the Democracy in Congress declined to help fill the Treasury 
with taxes which the people were perfectly willing to pay, and 
the army with soldiers who preferred being called to the army 
to volunteering into it. But their opposition availed not. 
Money and troops were both raised, and the alleged uncon¬ 
stitutionality of the method, even if true, does not detract a 
whit from the completeness of the victory, or its moral mag¬ 
nificence. 

But the “ alleged unconstitutionality” was not true. Had 
the Democratic Senators and Representatives in Congress set 
out to starve the Nation, or to make the army an easy prey 
to its enemies, the policy which they adopted was the policy 
which an intelligent purpose would have required them to 
adopt. It is thus impossible for an intelligent student of the 
history of those times to find that the Democracy were faithful 
to the country during the eventful years which began in 1861 
and ended in 1865. But the period of their especial guilt was 
from 1863 to 1865, when they definitely placed love of slavery 
before love of Union. In all that was done to overthrow 
slavery they bore no part. In all that was done to save the 
Union they bore little part. Their tone was always that of 
criticism. Their favorite was objection. Their enjoyment 
was found in obstruction. They habitually poised in an atti¬ 
tude of expectancy. They always held themselves as if pre¬ 
paring for disaster. But the disaster which they expected and 
for which they were prepared did not come to give them joy. 
The disaster which did come brought them shame and confusion. 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


103 


THE RESUMPTION OF SPECIE PAYMENTS. 

The early financial measures of the government were 
based on the theory that the Rebellion would be quickly sub¬ 
dued, and that specie payments would be maintained. 

Both suppositions proved erroneous. This hope disappeared 
after the military reverses of the summer of 1861 and the unex¬ 
pected delays in the fall of that year. The latter had caused an 
enormous growth in expenditure, with no corresponding result; 
and as new issues of paper and new loans became necessary, 
the maintenance of specie payments was seen to be impossible. 
The banks suspended on the 31st of December, 1861, and the 
government followed. Eight months of test had proved that 
the task before the Nation would tax its energies and resources 
as they had never been taxed, and that victory could come only 
after large outlays of treasure and serious loss of life. This 
condition of suspension lasted till January i, 1879—^ period of 
eighteen years. 

By January i, 1862, the army consisted of 7c»o,cxx) men. An 
active navy was in process of organization. The expenses were 
two millions of dollars a day. Congress had been in session 
one month, and had not had time to mature and pass necessary 
tax bills. 

During the next three months one hundred million dol¬ 
lars were imperatively required. How were they to be 
raised? A “ legal tender” issue was proposed. At once. New 
York, Boston, and Philadelphia banks sent a delegation to re¬ 
monstrate. They asked that a proper tax bill be passed ; that 
no demand treasury notes be issued ; that two-year treasury 
notes be issued, receivable for public dues, except duties, to the 
amount of $100,000,000; that the banks be made depositories 
of the government for all loans ; that six-per-cent bonds be 
issued and sold without limitation as to price; and that tem¬ 
porary loans be authorized, secured by hypothecation of these 
bonds, which were to be sold at market price if the loans were 
not paid at maturity. PTirther negotiation procured a partial 
modification of these cut-throat terms—all being directed, in 
part, to the avoidance of the issue of a “ legal tender” currency. 


104 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


But a few days’ experience showed how futile were all such 
plans. The situation admitted of but one remedy. 

Within one month, the Secretary of the Treasury found him¬ 
self unable to sell treasury notes bearing 7.30 per cent interest 
except at a discount, or 3.65 notes except at a greater discount. 
The floating debt at that moment was about $180,000,000 ; and 
it was certain that $600,000,000 would be required to carry the 
country through the campaign of 1862. 

The Ways and Means Committee of the House of Represen¬ 
tatives reported on the 22d of January, 1862, the bill which be¬ 
came the “Legal Lender” Act. On the 29th of January the 
Secretary of the Treasury advised the committee that “ it is at 
present impossible to procure sufficient coin for disbursements,, 
and it has, therefore, become indispensably necessary that we 
should resort to the issue of United States notes.” He admit¬ 
ted his great aversion to making anything but coin “ a legal ten¬ 
der in payment of debts,” but found the justification for this in 
the necessity of the case. Primarily, enormous expenditures 
compelled the issue. But, secondarily, it was enforced by the fact 
that there were institutions and persons who refused to receive 
and pay out the treasury notes previously issued‘,'to the manifest 
hurt of the government itself, and to the injury of those institu¬ 
tions and persons who were willing, in this great emergency, to 
receive and pay out these obligations and help their country. 
He recommended legislation providing for their funding into 
twenty-year six-per-cent bonds, the creation of a banking sys¬ 
tem based on such bonds, and a “judicious system of adequate 
taxation.” Such legislation, he hoped, “ would secure the ear¬ 
liest possible return to a sound currency of coin and promptly 
convertible notes.” 

On the 3d of February the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury advised Congress that immediate action was of great 
importance; that the Treasury was nearly empty; that he had 
drawn for the last installment of the November loan; and 
that, so soon as it was paid, he feared the banks would refuse to 
receive the treasury notes. The debate had been in prog¬ 
ress for some days. The bill was assailed as involving the 
“ destruction of all standards of value;” as “ disordering the 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


105 


operations of trade and commerceas involving the ultimate 
bankruptcy alike of the government and the people. It was 
denounced as without precedent in the history of the country, 
and as being the exercise of a power which no man had ever 
before claimed that the government possessed. 

The answer was that the passage of the bill was essential 
to the very existence of the government; that Congress under 
its powers to raise and support armies, to borrow money 
and provide for the general welfare had the discretion to 
determine what were the necessary available means ; that all 
money contracts are made not only with a view to the present 
laws, but subject to the future legislation of the country; 
that England had, by a like provision, in a like emergency, 
protected herself against a like danger; and that it involved 
to no one a special injustice. After full debate the bill passed 
both Houses, and was approved by the President, February 25, 
1862. The first issue authorized was of $ 150,000,000. This was 
in February, 1862. Four months thereafter $ 150 , 650,000 more 
were authorized. Eight months thereafter $i 50,000,000 more 
were authorized, of which $50,000,000 were to be used as tempo¬ 
rarily required for the redemption of temporary loans. As the 
issue increased in volume its purchasing power declined. By 
July, 1862, when $96,620,000 were in circulation, a “ greenback” 
dollar was worth in gold 86.6 cents. By July, 1863, when $297,- 
767,114 were in circulation, a “ greenback” dollar was worth in 
gold 76.6 cents. By July, 1864, when $431,178,671 were in circu¬ 
lation, a “greenback” dollar was worth in gold 38.7 cents. 

The figures indicate an increasingly desperate situation. In¬ 
stinctively, the two parties proposed two characteristic remedies. 
The Republicans in Congress met the peril by declaring a pur¬ 
pose to make the present issue of “ greenbacks” the fixed limit, 
and to depend for further needed revenue on further taxation 
and more bonds. The Democrats, in National Convention, 
met the peril by proposing to stop the war and seek peace 
through a convention of the States. The Republicans gave 
the pledge, kept it, and pushed on, with vigor, through the 
Wilderness to Appomattox. 

Within thirteen years from the issue of the “ greenbacks” the 


io 6 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


principal of the interest-bearing debt had, under Republican 
legislation, been reduced over six hundred million dollars : the 
annual interest-charge had been reduced to seventy-five million 
dollars ; the debt bearing no interest had been reduced by 
thirty-seven million dollars; the total debt, less cash in the 
Treasury, to about two thousand million dollars ; and the bur¬ 
den of the whole debt had fallen from $78.25 per capita to 

$47.44* 

Having put in the way of extinction the funded debt 
caused by the Rebellion, the Republican party proceeded, in 
1875, to relieve the people of the evils of a depreciated and 
fluctuating currency. 

They provided for the redemption in coin, on the ist of 
January, 1879, “ United States legal tender notes then 

outstanding,” and to make “ free” to all and at once the privi¬ 
leges conferred by the national banking system. The act pro¬ 
vided for retiring the fractional currency; for a reduction of 
the “ legal tender” circulation in connection with the issue of 
bank circulation until the limit of $3(X»,ooo,ooo for‘Tegal tender” 
notes was reached; and named January i, 1879, the date at 
which these notes were to be redeemed in coin. Four years were 
thus given for preparation, so that market values might be ad¬ 
justed to it, and the people prepare in their multifarious business 
relations for the change. This “ legal tender” circulation had 
been issued, it will be remembered, as a “ military necessity.” 
Notwithstanding such “ necessity,” it had been opposed in 
1862 on constitutional grounds, by a united and vindictive De¬ 
mocracy. In their view it was an unauthorized and dishonored 
issue, a forced loan, a menace to business, an unjust invasion of 
the sanctity of private rights. To them it had been as nothing 
that the circumstances which called the notes into being were 
such an overwhelming national necessity as always subordinates 
minor interests to the greater and all-absorbing interest. 

Now the opportunity was offered the fault-finding Democ¬ 
racy to aid in wiping out the dishonor and removing the 
menace which their issue was alleged to have involved and 
to be continually involving. And, marvelous to relate, they 
refused to participate in the effort, and stood as one man 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. 


107 


in opposition. They persisted in maintaining all the evils 
both of principle and policy against which they had fiercely in¬ 
veighed in 1862, and practically insisted upon the excellence 
of a currency which they had denounced as unconstitutional 
and which they were acting so as to keep unredeemed. Never¬ 
theless the bill passed. It had a majority of 18 in the Senate 
and 38 in the House. 

A few Republicans who desired an earlier day for redemption 
than January i, 1879, voted against the final passage of the bill, 
but the old Democracy pretended to no such reason. What 
were their reasons for opposition ? All claimed to be resumption- 
ists, but none favored this way of getting to resumption. As and 
always before, they preferred some other thing to the pending 
thing. One of them feared that the “ proper conditions” did 
not exist in the country, and he must be excused. Another 
regarded the bill as rather adverse than favorable to resump¬ 
tion, and he begged to be excused. A third would not sup¬ 
port it because it did not contain an outright and instantane¬ 
ous repeal of the Legal Tender Act, which would redress the 
“ great wrong perpetrated in 1862 therefore he went on the 
other side. A fourth regarded the bill as a “juggle,” and he 
esteemed himself too virtuous to become a juggler. And a 
fifth was sure that under the bill the country would be no 
nearer specie payments in 1879 

as “ money in reality as well as in name” was very near to his 
heart, he felt compelled to utter a sharp, shrill Nay. 

So it came that all these “ resumptionists” voted against 
resumption. The bill was not a good enough resumption bill 
for them. Thus they completed a record distinguished by 
maliciousness in the beginning of war legislation with a record 
distinguished by ignorance at the end of it—for resumption 
was effected under that act as then passed. 

At once upon the approval of this act Democratic agitation 
and Democratic trimming began. When Congress met in 
December, 1875, the Democratic House threw every possible 
obstruction in the way of resumption. It voted by 54 ma¬ 
jority against a resolution pledging themselves to sustain the 
Treasury in this effort. By a majority of two votes it passed 


io 8 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


a resolution in favor of the repeal of the clause giving the 
Secretary power to sell U. S. bonds for the accomplishment of 
resumption. And it actually passed, by a majority of 20 votes, 
a bill to repeal the clause fixing a day for resumption. But 
the Republican Senate declined to participate in this dema- 
gogy, and it came to naught. 

The Republican National Convention of 1876 demanded 
“ continuous and steady progress to specie payment.” Their 
candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, promised to “approve every 
appropriate measure to accornplish the desired end, and oppose 
any steps backward.” 

The Democratic National Convention denounced as a 
“ hindrance” to resumption the resumption clause of the act of 
1875, and demanded its “repeal.” Their candidate, Samuel J. 
Tilden, denounced a “ legislative command fixing a day, an 
official promise fixing a day, as shams, as worse—a snare and 
a delusion to all who trust them.” He predicted that the then 
existing plan for resumption “ would end in a new suspension,” 
which would be a “ fresh calamity, prolific of confusion, dis¬ 
trust, and distress.” But he said he was in favor of advancing 
to a resumption of specie payments on its legal-tender notes 
“ by gradual and safe processes tending to relieve the present 
business distress.” Like the Democrats in Congress the year 
before, Tilden was in favor of resumption—at some other time, 
not at this time ; in some other way, not in this way ; at some 
other rate of speed, not at this rate; to the distress of some 
other generation, not of this generation. 

One would have supposed, from the freeness of his criticism, 
that Mr. Tilden knew all about the subject of which he wrote. 
But events have incontestably proved that he knew nothing 
about it. Of his many predictions not one was fulfilled. 
Resumption came as intended and when intended. It came 
absolutely without a shock to the country or any part of 
it. But it severely shocked and dislocated such political 
gamesters as Mr. Tilden and the Democratic Senators and 
Representatives. They became stranded as leaders, discredit¬ 
ed as prophets, critics without character, professed statesmen 
having no statesmanship. When Mr. Tilden wrote so freshly 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. lOQ 

of what would be the “ inevitable failure” of resumption 
under the act of 1875, the “greenback” dollar was worth 90.2 
cents in gold. It had advanced from 67.3 cents in 1865. 
During those eleven years, notwithstanding the large business 
“ distress” which then weighed upon this tender-hearted candi¬ 
date, it had appreciated about 33 per cent. It was then within 
9.8 cents of par. His defeat and Hayes’s inauguration gave 
the country an assurance of stable purpose ; and within three 
months thereafter the “greenback” dollar was worth 94.7 
cents, and in July, 1878, 99.4 cents. On the first of January, 
1879, became par, not only without injury to the country, 
but with a sense of infinite relief. 

Thus the paper money of the Union, issued in its hour of 
weakness, was redeemed in its day of strength. The promise 
of 1862, made in gloom but in strong faith, became glorious 
fruition in 1879. both the promise and the fruition the 
Democratic party had no part. The Republican party alone 
had the courage to issue it. The Republican party alone had 
the courage to redeem it. 

THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1876, 1880, AND 1884. 

At the election of 1876 Governor Hayes of Ohio was the 
Republican candidate, and Governor Tilden of New York the 
Democratic candidate. The poll was enormous, being a gain 
of 2,000,000 over that of 1872, and of 2,700,000 over the exciting 
election of 1868. Hayes received 4,033,768 votes; Tilden 
4,285,992. There were 81,737 “ Greenback ” and 9,522 “Pro¬ 
hibition ” votes. Tilden had a plurality of about 250,000 votes, 
but was in a minority of one in the electoral college, in which 
the vote stood: Hayes 185, Tilden 184. After a memorable 
struggle, Hayes was declared elected. Under circumstances of 
peculiar difficulty, he conducted the country with firmness 
through a perilous crisis. He maintained with dignity his 
rights as President, redeemed his public pledges with scrupu-’ 
lous exactitude, took advanced steps in the direction of civil- 
service reform, restored specie payments, and resisted with 
courage the repeal, by a Democratic Congress, of statutes en- 


no 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


acted to protect polls from frauds and jury-boxes from the 
polluting presence of the criminal-sympathizing class. 

The accession of President Hayes has come to be regarded 
in Democratic literature as the colossal fraud of the century. 
But the principle which controlled the Electoral Commission in 
its various judgments upon'the points submitted to them is an 
impregnable one. It was, that the “ votes to be counted are 
those presented by the States, and when ascertained and pre¬ 
sented by the proper authorities of the States they must be 
counted.’' Outside of this principle all is chaos. If this were 
ever open to doubt, it must now be regarded settled since the 
recent act of 1887, defining how the Presidential count is to be 
made, enacts definitely that a determination, by the proper 
authorities of a State, of any controversy or contest concerning 
the appointment of electors in such State is “ conclusive and 
shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes ” of such 
State. The Democratic members of the Electoral Commission 
of 1877 unitedly resisted the application of this plain principle 
to the count of that year. But the Democratic members of 
Congress and the Democratic President of 1887 unitedly pre¬ 
scribed the rigid application of this plain principle to all future 
Presidential counts. The Democracy furnished in this a strik¬ 
ing illustration of a most characteristic trait—applying to a 
pending case a convenient rule which suits their interests, and 
content to apply to all future cases a different rule which is the 
law. So happily do they blend present greed with future duties, 
their interests of to-day with their principles of to-morrow. The 
critical reader of events who carefully scans the fierce Demo¬ 
cratic denunciations of the decisions of the Electoral Commis¬ 
sion to which the country is quadrennially treated cannot help 
asking why the principle of the act of 1887 can be considered 
sound enough to control all future contests and not sound enough 
to have properly controlled the contest of 1877. The question 
will never be answered. But the denunciation will, neverthe¬ 
less, go on. 

But it is said that certain local Returning Boards illegally 
excluded from their count of the popular vote certain votes 
cast for the Tilden electors, and thereby changed the result. 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. Ill 

The laws of those States gave those Boards this precise 
power, if on proofs made the facts justified such exclusion. 
These officers exercised this power upon their own judgment, 
as all officers must. Upon what proofs they acted is not now 
accurately known. If they abused their power and certified to 
a false result, and the electors so certified discharged that duty 
by casting their votes against the will of the majority of the 
legal votes cast at a legal election honestly held and honestly 
returned, the wrong was one for which the States had failed to 
provide a remedy, and for which, under our system, the Con¬ 
gress could not then prescribe a remedy. For the State could 
not reverse an act legally done, nor could the two houses of Con¬ 
gress, in counting the electoral vote, “ inquire into the circum¬ 
stances under which the primary vote for electors was given.’' 
Charges and counter-charges were freely made respecting frauds 
in the Presidential election. The facts were never fully in¬ 
quired into, and the truth may never be known. But, whatever 
be the truth or falsehood of these various charges, the fact re¬ 
mains that as a question of law the act of the State bound the 
.Commission and the Congress, and this rule is now impregnably 
established in statute as it was before in principle. 

On the other side of this question there is no doubt. The 
discovery and interpretation of the “ cipher telegrams,” many 
of which were traced to Gramercy Park, New York City, 
make clear the existence among the Democratic leaders of a 
distinct purpose to meet the emergency by procuring, some¬ 
how, the vote of a Republican elector. This conspiracy had 
many ramifications. In the North it took the form of indig¬ 
nant remonstrance or seductive appeal. In the South it took 
the form of corruption. All failed. Tilden was beaten in the 
Electoral College, and was so discredited by the damaging 
proofs of his connection with the conspiracy to bribe that his 
party in 1880 could not be induced, by renominating him, to 
seek a vindication for him against the “fraud of i876-’7.’' 
They chose to give their favor to one not known as a manager 
of politics. This refusal to renominate Tilden in 1880 was a 
confession that Tilden’s party dare not go to the country on 
his record in the Presidential count of 1876. Notwithstanding 


II2 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


this confession, that party, at every recurring interval, has the 
effrontery to resolve how grievously Tilden was cheated and 
how beautifully he bore the injustice. The play is intended to 
be touching. It is merely ridiculous. The known crimes of the 
Democratic leaders in that connection can safely be set off 
against all the charges made by them against either the popular 
or the electoral count. 

In 1880 James A. Garfield was the Republican candidate, 
and Winfield S. Hancock the Democratic. Both had served 
gallantly in the Union Army. But Garfield had also shone 
resplendently in the halls of legislation. In the election Garfield 
received 4,454,416 votes, and Hancock 4,444,952 votes. There 
were 308,578 “Greenback” votes and 10,305 “Prohibition.” 
The popular vote of the two great parties was almost a tie, but 
Garfield had a majority of 59 in the Electoral College. His 
untimely death brought into the Presidency Chester A. Arthur. 
During his administration an advance step was taken in the 
duty of extirpating polygamy from Utah and other Territories ; 
the Civil Service Act was passed ; while the Tariff Act of 1883 
and the American Merchant Marine Act gave marked relief to 
the business interests of the country. 

In 1884 James G. Blaine was the Republican candidate, and 
Grover Cleveland the Democratic candidate. The campaign 
was the most disreputable since 1844, in the prominence given 
to malicious personalities and in the unimportance attached to 
policies and measures. The vote reached the aggregate of 
10,067,610. Of these, Mr. Blaine had 4,851,081, Mr. Cleveland 
4,874,968. There were 175,370 “Labor” votes, and 150,369 
Prohibition. Cleveland had a plurality of 23,005 over Blaine, 
and a majority in the Electoral College of 37. But that major¬ 
ity was due to the 36 votes cast for Cleveland by the State of 
New York, in which the returns showed that he had a plurality 
of only 1,149. It has never been clear that the result as declared 
was the result shown by the ballots cast. But as it was mani¬ 
festly impossible within the thirty days which elapsed between 
the election and the meeting of the Electoral College, to make 
a contest over the declared result in that State, where over one 
million of votes were cast, there was nothing left for the Re- 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1856-1888. II3 

publicans to do but to acquiesce in the return, and allow Gov. 
Cleveland to be declared elected President. By so narrow a 
margin did the Republicans lose the Presidency, which had 
been in their hands for the last preceding twenty-four years. 

A SUMMARY. 

The Republican party established the homestead policy. 
James Buchanan vetoed it as unconstitutional. And it was 
unconstitutional according to the prevailing Democratic inter¬ 
pretations of that instrument. It was not unconstitutional ac¬ 
cording to the Republican interpretation of that instrument, 
which no court has yet been found to overthrow. That policy 
has, since 1861, established not less than 771,700 homes, repre¬ 
senting three and a half millions of people, with lands under 
cultivation reaching an aggregate in acres equal to that of all 
the New England States, of New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl¬ 
vania, Maryland, and Delaware put together. 

By the power of courageous and intelligent legislation it has 
broken down the barriers which made our Atlantic and Pacific 
States strangers to each other, has fused all these varied ele¬ 
ments of population into one harmonious whole, and given from 
each strength to the other. 

It has shed the light of its just and humane spirit upon the 
problems connected with the Indian question. 

It has steadily and discreetly antagonized the remaining 
relic of barbarism,” which at last gives signs of yielding in its 
sources of power. 

To the last act in this direction President Cleveland declined 
to lend the weight of executive approval. He allowed it to 
become law by lapse of time. Unwilling to veto it, unable to 
“ pocket” it, he sought avoidance in an attitude of indifference. 

It has embedded in law the principles of civil-service re¬ 
form, which a hostile Democracy discards but has not yet had 
the courage to attempt repeal. 

It stands ready to help cure the progressive illiteracy among 
voters, but finds relentless opposition in the Democratic party, 
which is most powerful in States which are most illiterate. 


H 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


It is always and everywhere for an honest suffrage, for an 
honest count, for an honest return of the vote cast—a united 
Democracy giving to the same sacred cause a lip-service which 
it interprets by a dastardly record of acts. 

It is the stalwart friend of every distinctively American 
thought, the defender of every American interest, and, by the 
ver)^ law of its being, the faithful protector of the rights of 
American labor, wherever or howsoever employed. 

It embodies the only policies which are consistent with the 
highest, best development of the American people. 

It represents the most brilliant post in the politics of civiliz¬ 
ation. By reason of causes within itself, it must be the great 
party of the future. 































. ■ 


t 


PUBLIC LANDS. 


XI5 


PUBLIC LANDS. 

By Hon. Lewis E. Payson, M. C. from Illinois. 

The Republican party is entitled to the entire credit for 
the adoption of the Homestead Law. 

No public question considered in recent years exceeds in 
importance that of the proper management and disposal of the 
public domain. 

When the Republican party was organized, the vast area of 
arable land in the Mississippi Valley in the West and North¬ 
west, as well as that greater area of territory lying westward 
and southwesterly to the Pacific Ocean, was largely the property 
of the government, undisposed-of public lands. 

Besides these were lands in many localities in the South in 
like condition. 

In a general sense, the only method of disposition of these 
lands had been by sale by the General Government, to realize 
money from them as an asset, as its necessities required and as 
capital would invest. 

For many years the minimum price was two dollars per 
acre ; all sales were at public auction, and only the remnants, 
after the close of the public sale, could be purchased at private 
sale. 

Hence there was very little chance for a poor man to pro¬ 
cure the desirable land for a home. However, beginning with 
the act of March 3, 1801, and ending with the act of March 
27, 1854, various “pre-emption” acts were passed by Con¬ 
gress, giving a settler the first right or preference to purchase, 
as against one desiring to buy for investment or speculation. 

The principal acts of this character were those of 1830 and 
1841, known as the Pre-emption Laws. 

These laws required not only settlement upon and improve¬ 
ment of the land, but a cash payment therefor of not less than 
one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. So that the public- 


ii6 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


land system was managed upon the principle of realizing as 
much revenue as possible from it. 

In view of the fact that the settlers, as a rule, were poor 
but industrious men, carving homes for themselves and their 
families out of the wild, unbroken lands, the Republican party, 
at the very outset of its career, adopted the principle of giving 
small areas of public lands to actual occupants for homes. 
The history of the movement for “ free homes for the people,” 
fDr “lands for the landless,” is both interesting and significant. 

Whatever of credit grows out of the inauguration, matur- 
'ng, and administering the Homestead Law of this day, the 
Republican party is entitled to it all. 

Moreover, the results attained have been secured only by 
the most persistent efforts and against the earnest opposition 
of the Democratic party during all these years. 

The Pre-emption Law, giving, as stated, a prior right of pur¬ 
chase to a settler, was in force when, in the Thirty-fifth Con¬ 
gress, Mr. Grow of Pennsylvania introduced in the House a 
bill providing in substance that no public lands should be sold 
at public auction until, at least, ten years after the same were 
surveyed and due return thereof made to the General Land 
Office. 

This gave the settler ten years of preference over the spec¬ 
ulator ; but it was defeated by a vote of 73 for to 78 against. 
Not a Republican voted against it. 

Again, on a bill relating to the then existing Pre-emption 
Law, in January, 1859, amendment in substance like the bill 
just named was moved by Mr. Grow; this amendment was 
adopted by a vote of 97 to 81, every Republican voting for it; 
but the bill as amended was defeated by a vote of 91 for to 95 
against. Every Republican, with a few Douglas Democrats, 
voted for the bill. 

At the session of 1858-59 Mr. Grow re-introduced the 
Homestead Law, which is the basis of the Homestead Law now 
in force. 

He had the same measure pending in the preceding Con¬ 
gress, but failed to secure consideration then; but the bill came 


PUBLIC LANDS. 11/ 

up for consideration on February i, 1859, 

earnest opposition of the Democratic party in the House. 

Parliamentary tactics were resorted to to defeat its con¬ 
sideration, but uselessly; and after a long debate upon it, it 
passed. 

In advocating the passage of the bill, Mr. Grow asserted 
the Republican doctrine that the government should cease to 
look to the public lands as a source of revenue, and that they 
should be set apart and secured in limited quantities as free 
homes for actual settlers, instead of being left, as they were 
under the practice then, to be absorbed by the capital of the 
country in a vast system of land monopoly. 

In earnest words he denounced the system of sales, and 
pleaded for free homesteads. After repeated attempts by the 
Democrats to smother the bill and failing, it passed by a vote 
of 120 to 76. 

Every Republican save one voted for the bill, and the 
party policy on the question was established. 

The bill went to the Senate; its consideration was antag¬ 
onized there by the Democrats; it was in charge of Senator 
Wade of Ohio, and by a vote of 25 to 23 was taken up. 

Under the rules the time limited for debate expired before 
a vote was had, and the pending subject then was a bill for the 
purchase of Cuba, and the contest was between these two bills 
—the one to acquire territory for the extension of slavery, the 
other to secure free homes for free men. The consideration of 
the Homestead Law was defeated, every Republican voting 
for it. 

Senator Wade again presented the bill, and was defeated by 
a vote of 24 to 31, every Republican voting for it; and a week 
later the attempt was again made, with the same result. 

After one more unsuccessful attempt that session, the matter 
was abandoned in the Senate for that term. 

Public sentiment had been freely expressed as to the meas. 
ure now, and in the Thirty-sixth Congress Mr. Grow again intro¬ 
duced the bill, and it was favorably reported by the Committee 
on Public Lands, and, after stubborn resistance and over^dilatory 
motions by the Democrats, it was pressed to a vote and passed 


ii8 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


by 115 to 65, the Republicans unanimously for it; all against 
it, Democrats. 

The bill went to the Senate, a committee of which reported 
a substitute for the Grow bill, in substance fixing a price for 
the lands at 25 cents per acre, and excluding settlers then on the 
public lands from its benefits. Various unsuccessful efforts 
were made by the Republicans to substitute the Grow bill. 
The Senate bill finally passed; the House refused to accept it. 
Conferences were had, and finally, because the Senate would 
not yield, the House receded and accepted the Senate bill, but 
with the clear statement that the principle was not to be 
abandoned, and that the effort would be kept up until the free- 
homestead principle was established and all the public lands 
opened to the people for homes without cost. 

This was on June 19, i860 ; on the 23d, President Buchanan 
returned the bill to the Senate with his veto. 

Except as to details not necessary to notice, he bases his 
objection to the bill on Democratic grounds of strict construc¬ 
tion of the Constitution ; that the small price fixed on the lands 
made them practically a gift, and certain-other provisions of 
the bill, providing in contingency for donation of lands to the 
States, and that Congress had no power to dispose of the public 
lands by gift or donation as proposed. 

The issue was clearly made; and the attempt to pass the 
bill over the veto failed, not receiving the necessary two-thirds 
vote. 

But the great fight for free homes was not to end here; a 
great deal of feeling was exhibited throughout the North on the 
question. 

The National Republican Convention met in Chicago and 
adopted this principle, in response to a clearly-understood sen¬ 
timent of the membership of the party, in this form : 

“ Resolved, That we protest against any sale or alienation to 
others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against 
any view of the free-homestead policy which regards the set¬ 
tlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty; and we 
demand the passage by Congress of the complete and satisfac¬ 
tory homestead measure which has already passed the House.’' 


PUBLIC LANDS. 


119 

The election of that year, resulting in a complete Repub¬ 
lican victory, placed the entire control of the law-making power 
in the hands of the Republicans. The party was now for the 
first time in a position to make its views effective and enforce 
its policy; so that early in its exercise of power it passed the 
Homestead Law, in February, 1862, in substance as it now 
stands upon the statute-book. 

Only three Republicans voted against it in the House, and 
only one Republican against it in the Senate. 

It is distinctively a Republican measure; the Democratic 
party has never, in its national platforms, favored or approved 
the principle it embraces. 

In 1856 the Democracy asserted that the proceeds of the 
public lands ought to be applied to national objects specified 
in the Constitution. 

In i860 the Republican platform contained the plank 
quoted above, while the Democratic platform was silent upon 
it, although the discussion had been earnest, in Congress and 
out, for the two preceding years. 

In 1864 and 1868 the Republicans stood by their declara¬ 
tion of i860, and the execution of the law they had passed. 

In 1872 the Republicans “ demand that the national domain 
be set apart for free homes for the peoplethe Democrats, 
that “public lands shall be held for actual settlers;’' they did 
not assert that they should be granted “ freely,” but presumably, 
under the Pre-emption Law, at a price. 

In 1876 the Republicans re-asserted the principle of 1872, 
and the Democrats were silent. 

There have been no changes since in the position of the 
parties. 

The Republicans are content to see the practical workings 
of the system they introduced. 

The official reports show the most gratifying results. 

From the passage of the bill to the end of the fiscal year, 
June 30, 1887, there have been made 771,700 entries under this 
law, covering 99,030,071 acres of public land; an area capable 
of furnishing comfortable homes for millions of people. 

During the last fiscal year more than 52,000 homestead 
entries were made, covering 7,594,350 acres of public land. 


120 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


These areas as expressed in acres are hardly comprehensi 
ble, but better understood when it is stated that the gross 
area of homestead entries is larger than all New England, the 
Middle States, and Maryland combined. 

The policy was established only after a long, earnest strug¬ 
gle, and hundreds of thousands of people, from experience as 
well as observation, attest its wisdom. 

Indeed, so universal is the indorsement of the principle now, 
that efforts are being made to so amend the general land laws 
that the only method of disposal of agricultural lands shall be 
by the Homestead Law, and it is believed such action will be 
had in the Fiftieth Congress. 

GRANTS OF PUBLIC LANDS TO AID IN THE CONSTRUCTION 
OF RAILROADS. 

The Republican party is constantly charged, in the language 
of the Democratic National Platform of 1876, as “the party 
which when in power has squandered two hundred millions of 
acres of public lands upon railroads alone,” etc. 

The changes have been, and are now, rung upon this state¬ 
ment, until, possibly, some who make it may believe that the 
fact is as stated, and the Republican party is responsible for 
the legislation. 

But it is an enormous exaggeration as to amount; at least 
debatable, even now, in the light and with the aid of experience 
as to its policy, and absolutely false as to the charge of re¬ 
sponsibility. 

That charge has not a shadow, even, of fact to rest upon. 

The truth is, the practice of granting public lands in aid of 
public improvements began in 1802, when Congress made a 
grant to Ohio to aid in constructing roads, and from that day 
to this the policy of such aid has never been a distinctive party 
question. 

A grant of public lands to aid a canal in Indiana was passed 
in 1824; in 1827 similar grants were made to aid the Wabash 
and Erie Canal in Indiana, and the Illinois Canal in Illinois; 
followed in 1828 by grants in aid of the Miami Canal in Ohio, 
aggregating nearly 2,500,000 acres, years before the Republican 
party was dreamed of. 


PUBLIC LANDS. 


I2I 


The first grant of public land in aid of a railroad was made 
by the act of March 3, 1835, to a Florida company; this was 
followed by a grant of land to the New Orleans and Nashville 
Railroad company, July 2, 1836. But the act of September 
20, 1850, was the first act of real importance of this character, 
and may be regarded as the initiation of the system of making 
grants of land to railroads by Congress. 

This act gave the State of Illinois 2,595,000 acres to aid the 
Illinois Central Railroad Company. It was the especial work of 
Senator Douglas of Illinois; and he was aided by very many 
Democrats of prominence, among them Senators King and 
Clement of Alabama, and Davis and Foote of Mississippi. 

This act was followed by the acts of 1856, in different 
States, in aid of railroads, and the policy of the government 
was thus settled before the Republican party began to act. 

The great grants to the Union Pacific and Central Pacific 
railroads are made the principal texts by our adversaries for 
denunciation. 

Waiving any discussion of the merits of the action here, 
remarking, however, that the knowledge that comes only after 
the fact is never specially important, history proves that the 
Democratic party first, then jointly with us, aided in all possi¬ 
ble ways to forward the enterprise. 

The agitation of the question of a transcontinental line of 
railroad began as early as 1838 in Iowa, and in 1845 petitions 
came to Congress for a grant of one hundred millions of acres 
of land to aid in the construction of a railroad to the Pacific 
Ocean. 

The same year Senator Douglas proposed a scheme for a 
road to the Pacific, aided by grants of public land ; and from 
that date to 1862 numerous plans were submitted to Congress 
on that question. 

The Republican National Convention in 1856 declared in 
favor of such road; and repeated this declaration in i860, in 
which year, in national convention, one wing of the Democ¬ 
racy, at Charleston and Baltimore, asserting the necessity of 
the construction of such a road, said: “ The Democratic party 
pledge such constitutional government aid as will insure the 
construction of a railroad to the Pacific coast.” The same 


22 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


pledge was made by the Breckinridge wing at its conventions 
in April and June, i860. 

Moreover, all the Presidential candidates in 1856, Buchanan, 
Fillmore, and Fremont, placed themselves on record for the 
plan of government aid; and Mr. Buchanan, after his election, 
more than once officially indorsed the giving the aid in grants 
of public land. 

So that all parties were thoroughly committed to the prin¬ 
ciple ; and when the act was passed incorporating the Union 
Pacific Company, and making direct grants to it and the Central 
Pacific Company for a complete line, it was supported by the 
leaders of both parties, in compliance with prior party commit¬ 
tals and pledges. 

And so with every other grant of this character. Not one 
was ever passed as a party question, nor under special support 
by either party, but carried by the united action of leaders in 
both parties in every case. 

Credit or blame for the action must attach as it shall be 
judged to be well or ill advised. 

Another question is raised, growing out of these grants, de 
serving notice. 

All the legislation provided that unless the roads were con¬ 
structed within the period named in the act, the right of the 
companies as to the lands, respectively, should, under varying 
circumstances, cease. 

Many of the roads granted aid were not constructed in the 
time required, some not yet completed * and thus the question 
of the status of “ unearned lands” and the reclaiming them by 
the government has been raised. 

There were involved in all the grants made, as appears by 
official statement of the Public Land Commission, necessary to 
fill and complete all grants to railroads, if completed, 155,504,- 
994 acres. 

The data upon which this computation is made is not com¬ 
plete, owing to imperfect reports in the General Land Office, 
etc.; and the amount stated is believed by the writer of this to 
be too small; but the authorities are content with it. 

Of the “ unearned lands ” granted to these corporations, 
there have Teen reclaimed, by acts of Congress declaring for- 


PUBLIC LANDS. 


123 


feiture of the same, 50,482,240 acres to this date (first session, 
Fiftieth Congress); and bills are now pending for forfeiture of 
large areas still, claimed by roads whose cases have not been 
reached. 

Of these, bills involving about ten million acres more Avill 
pass without opposition, there being no question, as to these, 
•either of power or policy as to such action. 

Now, the Democracy are claiming the credit for this restora¬ 
tion of “ unearned lands ” to the public domain as party ac¬ 
tion, and impliedly, if not directly, charging the Republicans 
with opposition to such action. 

In a word, this claim can be disposed of: every bill that has 
passed Congress since this agitation began was prepared and in¬ 
troduced, or based upon a bill prepared and introduced, by a 
Republican, both in the Senate and the House; * and party 
lines have never been drawn in either the discussion or passage 
;of these bills. 

The act against “ alien ownership ” of real estate is claimed 
:by the Democracy, and great credit is taken by them for its 
preparation and passage. 

The act was reported from a conference committee of the 
Senate and House, appointed on the passage by the Senate of 
.a bill prepared and introduced by and passed under the charge 
of Senator Plumb, and on the passage by the House of a simi¬ 
lar bill prepared and introduced by and passed under the 
•charge of Mr. Payson of Illinois. 

The report of the conference committee made by Senator 
Plumb to the Senate and Mr. Payson to the House is the act 
now in the statutes. 

It therefore clearly appears that on all these matters of 
land-reform, so earnestly approved by the people of the Union, 
the Republican party has not only been abreast of public senti¬ 
ment, but successful in all its endeavors; and equally clear is it 
that the claim of the Democracy to any share of the credit for 
the initiation of these measures is utterly without foundation. 


* These bills were prepared by Senator Plumb of Kansas, in the Senate, 
.and Mr. Payson of Illinois, in the House.— Editor. 




124 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


PENSIONS. 

By Hon. Edmund N. Morrill, M. C. from Kansas. 

Pensions are periodical payments of money from the public 
treasury on account of services rendered to the government, or 
to the public, or on account of losses sustained in such service. 

The United States has no civil pension list, such as are pro¬ 
vided in other countries, except in a few special cases, as those 
of widows of its former Presidents. Its pension roll is almost 
exclusively for service, or disabilities incurred in the army and 
navy. Having but a small military and naval establishment, 
and dependent almost entirely upon the patriotism of the 
people in the event of war, the policy of the government is to 
provide liberal laws for invalid pensions, and for widows and 
children who through the casualties of war have lost their 
husbands and fathers. While provision has been made for ser¬ 
vice pensions to the survivors of the Mexican and former wars, 
the principal part of our pension roll is made up of invalids and 
dependants of the late civil war. 

At the beginning of the late war of the Rebellion, as shown 
by the report of the Commissioner of Pensions made June 30, 
1861, the whole number of pensioners on the rolls was only nine 
thousand seven hundred and fifty-two. The annual report of 
the same officer for the year 1887 shows a total of four hun¬ 
dred and six thousand and seven, of which number two hun¬ 
dred and ninety-four thousand four hundred and forty-five 
were army invalids, and eighty-five thousand and ten widows, 
orphans, and dependent parents of soldiers. The pension law 
of July 14, 1862, was the foundation of our present system, and 
to this amendments have been made from time to time, ex¬ 
tending its beneficent provisions and increasing its allowances 
as rapidly as public sentiment demanded and the condition of 
the treasury would permit. 

Upon the Republican party devolved the responsibility of 


PENSIONS. 


125 


calling into the army and navy millions of citizens to encounter 
the dangers of battle and the hardships of military service in 
order to suppress a formidable rebellion; and upon that party 
devolved the responsibility of providing an adequate pension 
system, that those who received disabilities in the service, and 
their widows and those dependent upon them, might be prop¬ 
erly cared for. How they have met these responsibilities is a 
matter of history, and requires no explanation or apology. 

Rebellion suppressed, the government preserved from de¬ 
struction, the Union restored, the public credit established, 
ample revenue provided, its brave defenders pensioned, patri¬ 
otic service for the future assured—these are the indelible in¬ 
scriptions on its monument of fame. 

But in the rush of events the past is forgotten, dissatisfac¬ 
tion grows, and desire for change prevails. The party that 
served the Nation is defeated, and the one which sought its 
destruction has control of the government; and now this 
party, which was the mainstay and support of the Rebellion, 
has the audacity to put forth the claim that it is a better 
friend to the soldier who fought for the preservation of the 
Union than the party which called him into the field, and 
it further claims that it is more liberal in its provisions and ad¬ 
ministration concerning pensions. To determine this question, 
let facts be submitted to the American people. Under the 
general pension laws of the Republican party, invalids and 
widows of soldiers in the Mexican war stood on an equal foot¬ 
ing with Union soldiers, provided they had not subsequently 
borne arms against the United States, or given aid and support 
to the Rebellion. 

The Democratic party signalized its return to power by per¬ 
sistently demanding the passage of a bill to pension Mexican 
soldiers whether disabled or not, whether dependent or in 
affluence, to pension them notwithstanding their having borne 
arms in the Confederate army, and to pension them from the 
date of the passage of the act, without regard to the date of 
filing their claims; while Union soldiers were only pensioned 
from the date the claim is filed. This measure has become a 
law, and in the contest over it the Republicans attempted to 


126 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


incorporate some more liberal concessions to the Union 
soldiers, such as that Union soldiers now sick and disabled 
should be pensioned without having to prove the army origin. 
of their disability; that the widows and orphans of such 
soldiers should be provided for without proving that the fatal 
disease which resulted in death had its origin in the service 
and that dependent fathers and mothers should only be re¬ 
quired to show that they are now dependent upon others for 
support, and not to prove their dependence at the date of the 
death of the son. But Democratic votes in Congress and 
Democratic vetoes from the White House defeated all such 
attempts. The only concessions that could be obtained were 
that Mexican war soldiers should not be pensioned for disabili¬ 
ties received while serving in the rebel army. 

But it is claimed that the Democratic party has shown its- 
liberality and friendliness to the Union soldier by its Pension. 
Office administration, inasmuch as it has placed that bureau 
under the charge of a distinguished Union soldier. General 
John C. Black, himself wounded in battle, and who has signal¬ 
ized his friendship to his late comrades by granting more pen¬ 
sions than were ever granted by any of his Republican prede¬ 
cessors during the same length of time. 

I would not detract a single iota from the military record 
of this gallant officer, and it is true that a larger number of 
pensions have been granted during the past year and during his- 
administration than were ever before granted during the same 
length of time; but it is equally true that this is owing to the- 
liberal Republican laws, and the admirable and efficient organ¬ 
ization of the office by his predecessors. It is also owing to- 
the fact that more than three hundred thousand claims were, 
pending when he took possession of the office—claims that,, 
many of them, had been pending for years, and nearly all the 
evidence required to complete them had been furnished, and 
they were only awaiting slight formalities to complete the 
cases. 

During the administration of the office by his predecessors 
a large number of cases had accumulated in which claimants 
had been gradually obtaining evidence to complete the cases,. 


PENSIONS. 


127 


and which the office had been unable to act upon owing to the 
large amount of business before it. It is also true that his pre¬ 
decessor had rapidly disposed of many of the cases pending, 
and that the office was prepared to, and did, act much more 
promptly upon cases than ever before since the close of the 
war. 

The present Commissioner had the benefit of all this work 
done by his predecessors, and he also had the benefit of the 
organization of a division by Col. Dudley, his immediate pre¬ 
decessor in office, to collect the names and post-offices of sur¬ 
viving officers and comrades for the use of claimants, thus en¬ 
abling thousands of them to find their old comrades, and to 
obtain the necessary proofs w’lich they could not otherwise 
have done. 

In his report for June 30, 1887, he admits that one hun¬ 
dred and fifty-eight thousand two hundred and twenty-seven 
names and their post-office addresses were furnished the claim¬ 
ants in twenty-eight thousand two hundred and ninety cases, 
by this division, during the year preceding, and this Repub¬ 
lican provision enabled thousands of claimants to complete 
their cases who could never have done so without its aid, 
and to that is largely due the credit of increased number of 
allowances. 

General Black’s pretended liberality in the administration 
of his office is very clearly shown in his orders, rulings, and de¬ 
cisions for the government of his clerks. It is a fact which 
cannot be gainsaid, that as a general thing the liberal rulings of 
his Republican predecessors have been largely restricted or en¬ 
tirely reversed. In proof of this the following examples are 
given: 

He has ruled that widows are entitled to pension only from 
the date of filing their claims, and has overruled their appeal 
in repeated instances, although the law has been pressed upon 
his attention. Section 4702 of the Revised Statutes provides 
that ‘‘the widow’s pension should commence at the date of 
the husband’s death.” 

An appropriation bill passed March 3, 1879, provides that 
pension claims filed after June 30, 1880, should commence only 


28 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


from the date of filing. This was construed to include widows’ 
pensions, although, as Senator Teller says, “ nobody dreamed of 
any such result.” To correct this mistake, on the yth of 
August, 1882, Congress re-enacted section 4702, again provid¬ 
ing that “ the widow’s pension should commence from the date 
of the husband’s death but General Black has persistently 
refused to recognize this law, and has withheld a part of the 
pension money honestly due thousands of poor widows. To 
overcome this determined refusal to obey the law. Congress 
has been compelled to put into the pension appropriation a^t 
just passed a mandatory clause to compel him to pay them. 
No doubt the payment of these widows under this compulsory 
process will be claimed as a result of the “liberality” of the 
Commissioner and his party. 

In many cases filed in the Pension Ofifice, claimants have 
been unable to find evidence to complete their cases, and, 
wearied with the long waiting, and destitute and suffering, 
have appealed to Congress to relieve them by special acts. 
Section 4715 of the Revised Statutes provides that “any 
pensioner who shall so elect may surrender his certificate and 
receive in lieu thereof a certificate to any other pension to 
which he may have been entitled had not the surrendered cer¬ 
tificate been issuedbut General Black rules that a person 
receiving a pension by special act shall not be allowed to prove 
up his case under the general law when he finds his witnesses, 
and then surrender his certificate and receive the pension to 
which he would have been entitled had he not been a recipient 
of the favor from Congress: and this boasted “ liberality ” needs 
a mandatory act of Congress to compel him to obey this law. 

Another decision of characteristic “ liberality ” is found in 
ruling No. 135 of September 4, 1885, in which General Black 
says: “ The Commissioner holds that a man against whom the 
charge of desertion remains cannot receive a pension.” 

Henry Klussman, Co. K, loth Regiment, Ohio, was pen¬ 
sioned in 1863 and died. His widow applied for a pension, 
and her application was rejected on the ground that the record 
showed the soldier to have been at one time a deserter, and the 
adjutant-general refused to amend this record under the act of 


PENSIONS. 


129 


May 17, 1886. After the charge of desertion was entered upon 
the company rolls the soldier returned to his command, com¬ 
pleted his term of service, and was honorably discharged. This 
woman afterwards received her pension, but the ruling still 
remains. This ruling is in disregard of the official action of 
the Department of War. That Department having honorably 
discharged the soldier, it is none of the Commissioner’s busi¬ 
ness what military offenses he may have previously committed. 
It is in disregard of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the 
United States. 

That court, in the case of the United States vs. Kelly, 15 
Wallace, page 34, says: “ That the honorable discharge of the 
deserter was a formal final judgment passed by the govern¬ 
ment upon the entire military record of the soldier, and an 
authoritative declaration by it that he had left the service in a 
status of honor.” Hence the court says : “ Such a soldier does 
not need any correction.of his service by the adjutant-general, 
because his discharge amounted of itself to the removal of any 
charge or impediment in the way of his receiving bounty,” and 
this ruling reverses the practice of his predecessors, who were 
accustomed to obey the above decisions. But the present 
Commissioner is wiser than the Supreme Court, more powerful 
than the Secretary of War, and more “ liberal ” than all his 
predecessors. 

Another “liberal” decision was made in defiance of law 
and common-sense in the case of Thomas Ferguson, Co. B, 
91st Regiment, Ind. Vols. A special act of Congress approved 
May 6, 1873, directed the Pension Bureau to restore to the 
pension roll the name of this soldier. 

May 23, 1873, Secretary Delano decided: “Pensioners 
under special acts are entitled to restoration from date of sus¬ 
pension of original pension,” and the uniform practice of the 
office was in accordance with this decision, because the word 
“ restore ” could have no other sense; but in this case the Com¬ 
missioner restores him from the date of the approval of the 
act, and still withholds seven years’ pension to which the 
soldier is entitled. 

The national cemeteries, the numerous battle-fields of war, 


30 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


and various unknown resting-places hold remains of dead 
soldiers whose names are inscribed only on fame’s eternal roll. 
They sleep in unmarked graves, their resting-place unknown to 
loving friends. In many cases it is impossible to prove the 
date or cause of the death of the soldier. They were simply 
reported as missing. Perhaps the last known of them they 
were going into battle with their comrades, or they were lan¬ 
guishing on hospital beds, or they were immured in rebel 
prisons, or they were lost sight of in the hurried retreat. It 
was the practice under the Republican administration, and 
came to be a common law in the Pension Office, that when the 
presumptions of law as to the death of the soldier were fairly 
met, the date of death should be fixed at the date of the dis¬ 
appearance as nearly as possible. Thus the common-law rule 
that absence for seven years without ever being heard of was 
accepted as prima facie evidence of death, and the last date at 
which the soldier was seen or heard of was accepted as that 
from which the widow or dependent mother was entitled to re¬ 
ceive her pension; but Democratic “liberality” changes this 
rule. 

In the case of Mary A. Brennan, widow of Connor Brennan,. 
Co. I, 19th Ill., Commissioner Black ordered that her pension 
should begin seven years after the disappearance of her husband. 

In another case, of a dependent mother, whose son was en¬ 
gaged in the battle at Cold Harbor, and at the close of that 
engagement was missing and has never since been heard of, 
the Commissioner ordered that the pension should commence 
on the 4th of June, 1871, seven years from the date of the 
battle, and only changed this ruling upon a direct order from 
the Secretary of the Interior. 

But at last we do come to a genuine specimen of General 
Black’s “liberality.” Section 4714 of the Revised Statutes 
provides that declarations of pension claimants shall be made 
before a court of record, etc. Section 4 of the Mexican pen¬ 
sion act provides that the pension laws now in force which are 
not inconsistent or in conflict with this act are hereby made a 
part of this act so far as they may be made applicable thereto; 
but, disregarding these plain provisions of law. General Black is 


PENSIONS. 131 

issuing pension certificates under the Mexican service act, with¬ 
out any application whatever from the beneficiary. 

Hon. William R. Morrison of Illinois, who was a gallant sol. 
dier in the Mexican and also in the late war, had a pension 
certificate issued to him which he refused to accept because he 
had never made any application for a pension; did not want it, 
and would not receive it. Captain George A. Boss of Cincinnati, 
Ohio, also received a certificate of pension under the Mexican 
pension act without ever making an application for it. The 
same is true of the widow of Lieutenant William Demmett. 
How many other cases there are like these, can only be told by 
the records of the Pension Office. 

Were it not that the Commissioner of Pensions is noted for 
his fairness to political opponents and his comparative freedom 
from anything like partisanship, one might reasonably conclude 
that this excessive liberality towards the veterans of the Mexi¬ 
can war was due to the fact that they are largely from the 
South, and consequently good Democrats. 

VETOING PENSION BILLS. 

During the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress President 
Cleveland vetoed more pension bills than had all his predeces¬ 
sors since the organization of the government. 

This fact alone stamps the unfriendly character of this 
administration and of the party it represents. But to break 
the force of this fact two defenses are alleged: (i) that Mr. 
Cleveland also signed more pension bills than any one of his 
predecessors, and (2) that this exercise of his constitutional 
right shows an independence of judgment, a courage to accept 
the responsibilities of his office, and a desire to arrest fraudulent 
and unworthy claims, which should commend him to the ap¬ 
proval of honest and independent voters. 

These defenses might have some weight but for the fact 
that these bills were all passed by a Democratic House of 
Representatives upon the representation of a Democratic 
Pension Committee. What a set of scoundrels these Demo¬ 
cratic Congressmen must have been to consent to these frauds! 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


132 


Analyzing the bills approved and those vetoed, no one can 
discern any difference of honesty or merit in the two classes on 
which to base such insinuations. The reasons given in many 
cases simply betray ignorance of the respective provinces of 
Congress and the Pension Bureau. Thus the bill to pension 
Mavilla Parsons is vetoed because there is “ no pretext ” that 
she “ is entitled under the general law.” And dozens of others 
are vetoed upon this same ground. 

Now this is precisely the reason why Congress should act, 
if the case is a worthy one. To say an act should not become 
a law because there is no right under existing law, is to aver 
that Congress shall create no new pension rights. The Presi¬ 
dent, instead of proposing to limit the Pension Office by the will 
of Congress, actually proposes to limit Congress by the will of 
the Pension Office. 

Neither will the plea of official duty avail. 

The bill to pension Harriet Welch is vetoed notwithstanding 
the President says: “ I believe her case to be a pitiable one, 
and wish that I could join in her relief, but unfortunately 
official duty cannot always be well done when directed solely by 
sympathy and charity.” 

But this Roman devotion to duty did not prevent him from 
signing the bills to pension the widows of Generals Hancock, 
Blair, and Logan, at a sum equal in each case to that required 
for fourteen such cases as this pitiable one. 

John Taylor was pensioned at $12 per month by a special 
act of Congress. The Pension Office holds that it cannot in¬ 
crease his pension, and refuses to do so because Congress has 
fixed his rating. He is therefore compelled to go to Congress 
for further relief, and an act is passed to give him $16 per 
month. But the President vetoes this bill, holding that the 
claimant now has a liberal rating for a gun-shot wound through 
the face and shoulder which affects his sight and hearing, and 
causes him constant neuralgic pains. But he seems to have no 
conscientious scruples in signing a bill to increase the pension 
of General Benj. F. Kelly to $100 per month for gun-shot 
wounds which do not disqualify him for a high-grade clerkship 
in the Pension Office. 


PENSIONS. 


133 


Joseph Romiser was a member of a Maryland Volunteer 
Militia Company. In an emergency, the company was called 
on by the Government, and sent to Cumberland to repel a 
Confederate attack. This soldier, while in the ranks, was 
wounded by the accidental discharge of a gun in the hands of a 
comrade, the ball passing through his head and destroying the 
sight of one eye and the hearing of one ear. 

Congress could and did pension him by special act, but the 
President vetoed the bill because the man was not mustered into 
the United States service. But this was too flagrant an abuse 
of the veto power, even for a servile Democratic House, and 
the bill was passed over the veto by a vote of 175 to 38. In the 
Senate it passed unanimously, 50 votes in the affirmative and 
none in the negative. 

Scores of cases of bills approved and bills vetoed might be 
cited to show the utter inconsistency of the President in con¬ 
sidering these cases. It is a fact known to every one familiar 
with the work of the Committee on Invalid Pensions that the 
President has repeatedly vetoed the strongest bills and signed 
the weakest; that he has repeatedly vetoed bills for certain 
reasons, and approved other bills where the same reasons 
existed. 

It is unquestionably true that the President has little 
sympathy for the Union soldier, and would have vetoed many 
more cases if he had had time, as he plainly declares; and his 
hostility and utter lack of sympathy with this large class con¬ 
stantly crops out in trivial and sarcastic sentences in his mes¬ 
sages. For instance : “ No statement is presented of the bounty 
received by him upon either enlistment.’’ “ Probably there 
were those who found their interest in such an appeal ” (to 
Congress). “ The number of instances in which those of our 
soldiers who rode horses during the war were injured by their 
saddles indicates that those saddles were dangerous contriv¬ 
ances.” “ After this brilliant service with a terrific encounter 
with the measles.” “ Whatever else may be said of this claim¬ 
ant’s achievements during his short military career, it might 
be considered that he accumulated a great deal of disability.” 
Many more quotations might be made of a similar character 


^34 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


from his veto messages. They are coarse, undignified, and 
utterly unworthy of the Chief Executive of this great Govern¬ 
ment. 

If any further evidence is required to show the utter lack of 
sympathy on the part of the President for the soldiers who fol¬ 
lowed their country’s flag in the late rebellion, it is fully fur¬ 
nished by his action in vetoing the Dependent Pension bill 
passed in the P'orty-ninth Congress. 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, composed of nine Demo¬ 
crats and six Republicans, in an able and exhaustive report 
unanimously adopted, say: “ It passes the comprehension of 
this Committee' to understand how the President could have 
overlooked in another bill what are alleged as faults in this 
bill. 

“ The bill we refer to passed the House on the same day as 
did, and met with his unhesitating approval. It is the bill to 
give pensions to the survivors of the war with Mexico, etc. 
Under that bill, if one who was a soldier in that war and is now 
under sixty-two years of age applied, he must allege and prove 
some degree of dependency, and no matter how slight, quite 
vague and indefinite, and any degree of disability, is sufficient, 
no matter how incurred, except in the military service against 
the United States; and no matter if he be worth millions, he 
need only show sixty days’ service; he need not have been in 
an actual engagement with the enemy, or subjected to any of 
the actual dangers of war, or even that he should have been in 
Mexico, or on the coasts or frontiers thereof; it is sufficient if 
he had been e 7 i route thereto, and it embraces within its pro¬ 
visions more persons than are to be benefited by the bill now 
under consideration. 

“ It grants the pension to every soldier over sixty-two years 
of age, without any condition as to his circumstances or neces¬ 
sities, and without requiring any disability as the result of 
even though he be a member of Congress drawing a salary 
of $5000 per , annum. It gives a pension to every soldier 
under sixty-two years for any disability, even if the disability 
resulted since his service and from his own vicious habits or 
gross carelessness and for this he gets $8 ; while the Union 


PENSIONS. 


135 


soldier for the same disability, received in the line of duty and 
while in the service, would get perhaps only $2; and it gives a 
pension to every widow of a soldier in that war who is now 
sixty-two years of age, whether she was the wife of the soldier 
or not at the time of his service, without reference to the cause 
of his death, even if he was killed in battle while serving in 
the Confederate army. 

“ The committee would rejoice if there could even now be 
found some indefinite vagueness or latent ambiguity in the 
Mexican pension law that would enable the President to say 
that these results were not foreseen by him when he was ap¬ 
proving the one and contemplating a veto of the other. 

“ The bill we presented to the House was broad, liberal, and 
patriotic. It struck down any disbarment from the pension- 
list on account of any service against the flag, excepting such per¬ 
sons as were laboring under political difficulties. It was 
intended to reach mainly the survivors of our civil war who 
had fought for the Union, but it embraced within its generous 
terms the survivors of the war of 1812, the Indian wars, and 
the war with Mexico ; all who could show that they were 
totally unable to labor and were dependent upon their daily 
labor for support could appeal to its provisions, and all were to 
be treated exactly alike. If this bill fails to become a law, 
such distinctions are made by the acts of the Executive in ap¬ 
proving one and disapproving the other that the committee 
cannot believe it will be indorsed anywhere by the patriotic 
sentiment of this country.” 

In the message returning that bill to Congress without his 
approval, he made the following grave and unfounded charges 
against the brave men who suffered for their country. The 
committee answer these base calumnies in the following em¬ 
phatic language. 

The President says: “ Recent personal observation and 
experience constrain me to refer to another result which will 
inevitably follow the passage of this bill. It is sad, but never¬ 
theless true, that already in the matter of procuring pensions 
there exists a widespread disregard of truth and good faith, 
stimulated by those who, as agents, undertake to establish 


136 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


claims for pensions, heedlessly entered upon by the expectant 
beneficiary, and encouraged, or at least not condemned, by 
those unwilling to obstruct a neighbor’s plans.” 

“ Your committee do not share in the opinion that ‘ there 
exists a wide-spread disregard of truth and good faith ’ in the 
prosecution of pension claims. Nor do we believe that the ex¬ 
soldiers of the country are prone to commit fraud, perjury, and 
subornation of perjury for that purpose or for any other. If, 
however, such be the fact, it does not appear to be productive 
of result in the successful issue of fraudulent claims in any 
appreciable degree. 

“ The late Commissioner of Pensions, Hon. W. W. Dudley, 
in an annual report, says that with the most searching investi¬ 
gation of all cases of suspected fraud, the result showed that 
in the number of allowed claims one tenth of one per cent, or 
one in each thousand only, of allowed cases were fraudulent. 
With the present large force of special examiners in the field, 
charged with the duty of reporting to the office any evidence, 
even of a hearsay character, that tends to show, a claim to be 
fraudulent, the opportunity to procure a fraudulent pension, or 
to enjoy one after it is procured, seems to be reduced to the 
minimum.” 

And they further express their convictions of his lack of 
sympathy for the veterans as follows: “ In.conclusion, we sub¬ 

mit that the general tone of the message is to be fairly taken 
as an expression in advance of a purpose to use the executive 
power to prevent any further legislation that will add any new 
class to our pension-list, or that will materially increase the 
cost thereof, and based upon the idea that the country is 
against it.” 


ACTION IN CONGRESS. 

A pension roll which bears over 400,000 names, and to 
whom there is annually paid about $53,000,000 sufficiently 
attests the readiness of the Republican party to redeem all its 
pledges to those it called into the field in the national defense; 
for the votes of Republicans in Congress are uniformly cast in 
favor of the most liberal measures. Indeed, they have often 


PENSIONS. 


137 


been called to defend themselves against the charge of extrava¬ 
gance and recklessness in voting public money for pensions. It 
is only in political campaigns, when the votes of the soldiers 
are in question, that the Democratic party has the temerity to 
set up a claim of equal friendliness. Only a few comparisons 
of party records can be given as specimens, but these will 
amply suffice. 

In January, 1879, ^ bill was passed providing that pensions 
should commence from the date of the discharge of the invalid 
soldier. As this measure was passed at a time when the Demo¬ 
crats had a majority in the House, a few of their more zealous 
advocates have claimed credit for this as a Democratic measure. 

The facts are that the bill, H. R. 4234, was introduced by 
Mr. Cummings, a Republican from Iowa, June 19, 1878, and on 
motion of Mr. Haskell, a Republican from Kansas, the Com¬ 
mittee on Invalid Pensions was discharged from its further con¬ 
sideration, and it was taken up for action. It passed the House 
by a vote of 164 yeas to 61 nays. Every Republican vote 
recorded is in its favor; and every vote against it is that of a 
Democrat. As a party question the record shows the Demo¬ 
crats to be against it, 48 having voted for it, and 61 against 
it. Whatever of credit or of blame therefore attaching to the 
Arrears Act belongs to the Republicans. 

In the Forty-eighth Congress, March 4, 1884, the House 
passed a bill to pension the surviving soldiers of the Mexican 
war and their widows by a vote of 227 to 46. The Republican 
Senate amended this bill by adding sections making further 
provisions for disabled and dependent soldiers of the civil war 
—increasing the pension of widows from $8 to $12 per month 
—continuing pensions to children above 16 years of age when 
they were helples, providing that fathers and mothers should 
only be required to show present dependence instead of de¬ 
pendence at the date of the son’s death. Thirty-one senators 
voted for these amendments, all Republicans: and twenty- 
seven senators voted against them, all Democrats. On the 
return of the bill to the House it failed of consideration by 
Democratic opposition. On a motion to suspend the rules to 
take up and pass the bill, 75 Republicans and 52 Democrats 


J 38 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


voted in the affirmative; and 84 Democrats and one Republican 
in the negative. The motion being lost because two-thirds 
were required to carry it. 

In the Forty-ninth Congress the Mexican War Service 
and the Dependent Soldiers’ bills were passed separately to 
satisfy Democratic demands. The reason of this demand was 
soon apparent. The two bills were passed on the same day, 
and President Cleveland promptly signed the one and vetoed 
the other. 

The Mexican Service Act pensioned all survivors and their 
widows who were sixty-two years of age; all who had any 
physical or mental disability without reference to age or origin; 
and even rebels who had borne arms against the nation. But 
poor Union soldiers who by reason of age, disease, or accident 
had found their way to the poor house, could have no relief 
with Democratic consent. On the passage of this Dependent 
bill in the House, 112 Republicans and 63 Democrats voted 
for it, while the 76 votes against it were all Democrats. On 
the attempt in the. House to pass it over the veto, 137 Repub¬ 
licans and 38 Democrats voted for it; and 125 votes, all Demo¬ 
crats were recorded against it; and it failed for want of two- 
thirds. 

But the action, or rather the refusal to act upon the part of 
the Democratic party in the present Congress (P'iftieth) speaks 
more plainly than ever of their determination to prevent any 
further legislation in behalf of the veterans of the late war. 
The control of the legislation of the House of Representatives 
rests entirely with the Committee on Rules (of which the 
Speaker is Chairman) when that committee is sustained by the 
party having control of the organization of the House. They 
fix days for the consideration of bills reported from the several 
committees, and no legislation can be considered in any other 
way or at any other time except on suspension days, i.e., the 
first and third Mondays of each month, or by the unanimous 
consent of all the members present. The Speaker decides ab¬ 
solutely and without any restriction what measures may be 
considered upon suspension days, as he can recognize or refuse 
to recognize any member who moves to take up any measure. 


PENSIONS. 


139 


Under the rules on suspension days debate on a bill is limited, 
and a two-thirds vote is required to pass it. The Committee 
on Rules have so far this session refused to support a resolution 
fixing a time for the consideration of bills reported by the Com¬ 
mittee on Invalid Pensions. 

Early in April a resolution was introduced in the House 
and referred to the Committee on Rules setting apart two days 
to be devoted exclusively to the consideration of such pension 
bills as that committee might decide to bring before the House, 
Repeated appeals have been made to that committee to report 
that resolution to the House so that a vote could be taken 
upon it. A petition signed by one hundred and forty mem¬ 
bers was presented to them, asking for a favorable report upon 
that resolution. By a unanimous vote the Republicans in their 
caucus requested this committee to assign a reasonable time to 
the Committee on Invalid Pensions for the consideration of 
such bill reported by them as they might choose to present. 

For five months the Committee on Invalid Pensions has 
been actively and industriously engaged in considering and 
perfecting measures for the relief of the surviving soldiers of 
the War of the Rebellion and their Avidows and orphans. More 
general bills have been referred to them than to any other 
Committee in the House. More than one hundred and fifty 
bills of a general character have been presented for their con¬ 
sideration. After weeks of careful examination of the different 
measures, the Committee have reported twelve bills, and with 
but two exceptions the reports have been made upon the 
unanimous vote of the Committee, and the most of them would 
doubtless receive favorable consideration in the House if it 
was allowed to vote upon them. With but a single exception, 
the amount of money required to carry out their provisions 
would be small, and the objects sought to be obtained are de¬ 
manded by every principle of justice and equity. 

The bill to increase the rate of pension to the deaf, simply 
gives to this unfortunate class, who are doomed to eternal 
silence, who are shut out from all the more important vocations 
of life, who are deprived of the priceless privilege of communing 
with their loved ones in the ordinary way, who can never enjoy 


140 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


the sweet music surrounding them, or listen to the innocent 
prattle of their little ones, a pension commensurate with their 
disability, and affords a relief that ought long since to have 
been granted them. 

The measure for the relief of the ex-prisoners of war does 
but scant and tardy justice to that heroic band of brave men, 
who underwent greater privations and endured more terrible 
sufferings than any other class of their comrades. They were 
animated by a spirit of devoted loyalty to their country in every 
vicissitude, and grandly chose a lingering death by starvation 
rather than renounce their allegiance to the old flag. 

Another bill proposes to increase the pensions of that very 
small but sadly afflicted class, numbering but a score, and so 
soon to pass to that bourne where the conflict of arms is never 
heard—the old veterans who lost both arms in the defense of 
their country. Another provides for bereaved fathers and 
mothers who are now dependent, but were not dependent when 
the son died, and for dependent widows of soldiers even in cases 
where the husband’s death cannot be technically traced to 
wounds or disease contracted in army service. Another meas¬ 
ure proposes to abolish the unjust discrimination which exists 
in the present law, by which a portion of the totally helpless 
now receive but fifty dollars per month, while others, no more 
unfortunate, receive seventy-two, giving them all the same 
rating. 

The measure of as much merit as any, and one demanding 
the most urgent action, provides for that large and increasing 
class of our country’s sturdy defenders who, as old age comes 
creeping upon them, find themselves no longer able to provide 
the necessary means of subsistence, and are compelled to seek 
refuge in the inhospitable alms-houses and other charitable in¬ 
stitutions of the country, or accept a support from the hands 
of relatives and friends sometimes sorely burdened to provide 
for their own necessities. 

The most important bill reported from the Committee, 
taking into consideration its cost, is that repealing the Arrears 
Act, and placing all soldiers of the late war upon an equal 
footing. That those who went forth from the same homes, 


PENSIONS. 


I4I 

enlisted in the same companies, performed the same services, 
fought side by side on the same battle-fields, followed the same 
flag through the same long and weary marches, experienced 
the same privations, suffered from similar wounds and diseases, 
should receive the same consideration at the hands of the 
government, is a proposition the justice of which none will 
deny. 

The other bills reported from the Committee while they 
are, so far as the cost involved is concerned, comparatively 
unimportant, correct manifest irregularities and injustices in 
the present laws. All of these measures are now pending on 
the House Calendar, but cannot be considered by that body on ^ 
account of the autocratic exercise of power by the Committee 
on Rules, which refuses to allow the representatives of the 
people to discuss measures that a majority of them heartily 
approve. 

Every soldier in this country ought to know that the respon¬ 
sibility for the failure of prompt and adequate pension legisla¬ 
tion rests upon the majority of the Committee on Rules, and 
upon the party which controls the organization of the House, 
and which made that Committee. 

The Democratic members of that body can any day, aye, any 
hour, pass any pension bill now reported to that House which 
they choose to do. Not a Republican member upon that floor 
will make the slightest objection to a fair consideration of any 
measure for the relief of the brave men who saved this country 
from disruption, and who made it possible for us to enjoy the 
prosperity which now surrounds us : who in fact gave us the over¬ 
flowing Treasury which now causes so much needless alarm and 
which would be speedily relieved of a portion of its surplus if 
simple justice was done them. Let every man who wore the blue 
during the late war, then, understand that the Democratic party 
alone is responsible for the failure of Congress to pass measures 
for their relief. It is highly probable that, yielding to the 
growing demand for the enactment of further pension legisla¬ 
tion, they will consent to the passage of some of the more 
unimportant bills; but it seems equally certain that no time 
will be set apart for the discussion of such measures, and con- 


142 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


sideration of such bills only as they select will be allowed, and 
this only on suspension days, when no amendments can be 
made, and when debate is practically cut off. 

A great deal has been said of the liberality of our govern¬ 
ment in providing for its disabled defenders, and their widows 
and dependent children. Again and again we are pointed to 
the appropriation of $8o,(XX),ooo in a single year for the pay¬ 
ment of pensions as proof of this. This is misleading and not 
altogether fair. The Commissioner of Pensions shows in his last 
report that the annual pension-roll costs less than $53,000,000. 
All in excess of this is to pay pensions that were due for previ¬ 
ous years, and is to pay old claims which have just been adjudi¬ 
cated. It will be freely admitted that even $53,000,000 is a 
large sum, but it must be borne in mind that the late war was a 
gigantic one, unparalleled in point of numbers engaged by any 
in the history of the world. 

The reports in the Adjutant-General’s office show that 
during the four years of its continuance there were 2,865,028 
enlistments. Allowing a liberal estimate for the double enlist¬ 
ments, at least 2,400,000 men must have been engaged in the 
Union army. Of this vast number, nearly 300,000 were killed 
in battle or died of wounds received or disease incurred 
during the war, and thousands of others returned to their 
homes only to suffer and die in a few short months. Of this 
vast army, up to June 30, 1887, 628,272 had filed claims for 
pensions, of which but 364,886 had been allowed. Of these, 
294,445 were on the rolls at the time above stated. 

364,886 claims had been filed by widows, orphan children, 
and dependent relatives. The average pension paid was $i30.10 
per year, surely not an extravagant sum to pay for the loss of 
husbands and fathers, and the terrible loss of limbs, and the 
sufferings from wounds and diseases. Of the number then on 
the rolls, 144,881, nearly one half of the soldiers, were receiving 
less than $75 each per year. What munificence! 

The widow who gave her husband in the prime of life, full 
of bright hopes for the future, received $8 per month for her 
sacrifice, and this great Nation generously gave her $2 per 
month for the support of the child made an orphan by the 


PENSIONS. 


143 


ravages of war. What happy wife would not cheerfully sur¬ 
render her loved one for such a generous pension? What child 
would be so ungrateful when it arrived at manhood as to lose 
an opportunity to sing praises to the glorious government that 
contributed so liberally to his support ? 

It is about time that this senseless twaddle about the gen¬ 
erosity of the government to the noble men who sacrificed 
their all to preserve its existence should cease. The brave 
men who fought the battles for the preservation of the Union 
from 1861 to 1865 will never be compensated for their terrible 
sufferings and sacrifices. The government is abundantly able 
to provide for these men in their declining years—to care for 
those who are destitute and suffering; and to do this entitles it 
to no credit. To do less would be base ingratitude. 


144 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


OUR FISHERIES. 

By Hon. William P. Frye, U. S. Senator from Maine. 

To a reasonable understanding of the matters in contro¬ 
versy between the United States and the Dominion of Canada 
touching the fisheries, a historical statement is important, 
though it must necessarily be brief and somewhat incomplete 
on account of the limits of this article. 

The waters in contention were acquired from France largely 
by the bravery and skill of our fishermen, were enjoyed by us 
as a colony of Great Britain, and our rights in them secured to 
us as a republic by the treaty of 1783 in the following article : 

ARTICLE III. 

“ It is agreed that the people of the United States shall 
continue to enjoy unmolested the RIGHT— 

‘‘ (i) To take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and all 
the other banks of Newfoundland ; 

“ (2) And also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence; 

“ (3) And at all other places in the sea, where the inhabi¬ 
tants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish. 
And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have 
LIBERTY— 

“ (i) To take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of 
Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or 
cure the same on that island); 

“ (2) And also on the coasts, bays, and creeks of all other 
of his Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America.” 

England’s assumption is apparent, even in this article, 
wherein she concedes to us fishing grounds all the way from 
30 to 200 miles from the coast line of her possessions, over 
which she had no more jurisdiction than she had over the 
waters of the mid-ocean. 

Her unscrupulous purpose to aggrandize her power regard- 


OUR FISHERIES. 


145 


less of the rights of others forced us into the War of 1812, and 
impelled her, after the war was over, to the declaration that 
we had thereby forfeited all the rights in the fisheries we ever 
had as her colony, or had acquired under the terms of the 
treaty of 1783. Our Commissioners resisted this demand, and 
the result was that the treaty of peace of 1814 was entirely 
silent as to the fishery rights. 

Then came the treaty of 1818, negotiated at a time exceed¬ 
ingly unfortunate for us. We were staggering under the 
burdens of the late war, while England was arrogant under 
the inspiration of her victory at Waterloo, the entry of the 
allies into Paris, and the abdication of Napoleon. We delib¬ 
erately surrendered at least one half of our fishery rights, and 
dealt a blow to that industry from which it has never recovered. 

By the terms of the treaty England laid the foundation for 
ceaseless demands, and invited her colonies to the enactment 
of penal laws, and the commission of outrages in their name,, 
which would disgrace any civilization. Article i of the treaty 
provided: 

“ And the United States hereby renounce, forever, any liberty 
heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to 
take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of 
the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of his Britannic Majesty’s 
dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned 
limitswith a proviso that our fishermen might enter those 
bays, etc., for shelter and to repair damages therein, to pur¬ 
chase wood or to obtain water, but for no other purpose 
whatever.” 

In other words, we made a partition of our property rights 
in these British waters, reserving, however, to our fishing-vessels 
especial privileges in the bays, -harbors, etc., assigned in this 
division to England’s colony—privileges peculiar to such vessels, 
and enjoyed by no others carrying the American flag. 

Shortly after the conclusion of this treaty, England for the 
first time set up what was known as the headland theory; that 
is, that the excluded waters should be measured by a line 
drawn from headland to headland across the bays, harbors, etc. 
and that the three-mile shore-line should be measured outside 


146 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


of that. Our government resisted the claim, and Great Britain 
instructed her colonial officers not to enforce it. For several 
years there was little if any trouble, but in progress of time 
England and her colonies came to look with covetous eyes 
upon our increasing market, and finally determined to possess it. 
They seized vessel after vessel, condemned them in colonial 
courts on the testimony of colonial witnesses, refused them 
shelter, drove them to sea in storms, seized and searched on 
the high seas, broke up voyages, until in fact the perils of the 
sea on the banks were not greater than the dangers of the law 
within the shore-line. Our government interfered again and 
again. Mr. Van Buren sent the Grampus into those waters in 
1839; Mr. Pierce ordered a fleet there; the Kearsarge and the 
Mississippi cruised there: and in the presence of our armed 
vessels our fishermen were undisturbed, but immediately on 
their withdrawal the outrages were renewed. The records are 
full of evidences of illegal seizures; of seizures and condemna¬ 
tions on complaints of the most trivial and inconsequential 
character; of every conceivable outrage and wrong; of every 
violation of the rights of hospitality and friendly intercourse. 

In the pursuit of these unjustifiable methods England and 
her colony had but one purpose—to force open our markets; 
and in 1854 their efforts were crowned with success, in the rati¬ 
fication of a reciprocity treaty, under the terms of which they 
opened their fisheries to us, and we our markets to them. 
This treaty was of immense benefit to them and unfortunate 
for us, as is clearly indicated by the fact that at the very earli¬ 
est moment, when under its terms we had the right, it was 
terminated by a vote of nearly two to one in the House of 
Representatives, and of nearly five to one in the United States 
Senate. 

Then the Canadian Government resorted to a system of 
licensing, charging for the first year for a license fifty cents a 
ton, the second one dollar, and the third two dollars. Our 
fishermen, unable to bear such a burden, refused to avail them¬ 
selves of these licenses, and the experiment proved a failure. 
Whereupon Canada again resorted to the old and hitherto 
successful tactics of outrage, seizure, and condemnation, until 


OUR FISHERIES. 


H7 


the patience of our government was exhausted, and Congress 
indicated by its reception of “ The memorial of the fishermen 
of the United States ” that retaliatory legislation was immi¬ 
nent, when, unfortunately for our interests, the treaty of Wash¬ 
ington, in 1871, was negotiated and ratified. 

Under the terms of that treaty we secured the right to fish 
within the shore-line of Canada, and other privileges unneces¬ 
sary to mention, paying for these almost worthless rights 
§5,5CX),ooo, and giving to Canada our markets for her fish. 
During the life of this treaty we remitted in duties nearly 
$6,000,000—the last year of its existence, in 1885, nearly 
$700,000, or, to be exact, $689,602.25. 

At the earliest possible moment, under the terms of the 
treaty, a resolution passed both Houses of Congress, with en¬ 
tire unanimity, requesting the President of the United States 
to give the required notice for the termination of the fishery 
articles. The President gave the notice, and July i, 1885, 
they were abrogated, and we were remitted, so far as the fish¬ 
eries were concerned, to the treaty of 1818. 

Unfortunately for us, our Secretary of State, Mr. Bayard, 
was profoundly ignorant of all the questions touching these 
fishery rights, and Sir Lionel West, the British minister, un¬ 
doubtedly persuaded him that conflicts between the United 
States and the Canadian fishermen were liable to take place at 
any moment, and might even provoke a war with Great Britain. 
So he made haste, without authority of law, to enter into an 
.agreement with the British minister for a modus vivendi, 
which should endure until the meeting of Congress in Decem¬ 
ber, under the terms of which we were to be permitted to fish 
within the waters of the Dominion and they within ours, and 
the President of the United States was, in his annual message, 
to advise Congress to authorize the appointment of a commis¬ 
sion to settle and determine our rights in these waters. 

This modus vivendi w^as agreed upon without any consulta¬ 
tion whatever with men who were familiar with the questions 
it treated, and interested in promoting the fishery industry of 
the United States. George Steele, President of the American 
Pishery Union, April 28, 1885, wrote to our Secretary of State 


148 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


that “the officers of the Fishery Union desire to present the 
interests of their pursuits in this emergency to the attention of 
yourself personally or to the President.” But the Secretary of 
State, May 2, 1885, informed him that such an interview was 
entirely unnecessary. 

In compliance with the terms of this arrangement, the 
President in his annual message to Congress in December, 
1885, recommended the Commission, and the Senate on the 
13th of April, 1886, after careful consideration and exhaustive 
discussion, declared that in its judgment no such commission 
ought to be appointed, and on July 24th, of the same year 
ordered the Committee on Foreign Relations to investigate 
the fishery question, which instruction that committee com¬ 
plied with, and on 19th January, 1887, made report recom¬ 
mending the enactment of a law for the protection of Ameri¬ 
can rights. 

From the date of the expiration of the modus vivcndi up to 
the end of the fishery season of last year, the Dominion of 
Canada, apparently with the approval of Great Britain, cease¬ 
lessly committed every conceivable outrage upon our fisher¬ 
men, boarded their vessels, placed them under guard, seized 
and bonded them, insulted their masters, pulled down the 
American flag, and refused our sailors the common rights of 
humanity. More than one hundred complaints of these out¬ 
rages were formally filed with our Secretary of State. So 
grossly unjust and outrageous was this treatment that in the 
month of February, 1887, a stringent and comprehensive retal¬ 
iatory law passed the Senate by a vote of 46 to i, and in the 
House by a vote of 256 to i. 

The only difference between the two Houses was, that the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House, in its majority 
Democratic, reported to the House (Democratic), a bill which 
passed that body authorizing the President to go to the ex¬ 
tent of declaring absolute non-intercourse with the Dominion 
of Canada if these outrages were continued ; while the Senate 
believed that retaliation in kind would be all that was necessary. 
The disagreement between the two Houses resulted in a Con¬ 
ference Committee, which reported (the House yielding) the 


OUR fisherif:s. 149 

bill which finally passed and was approved by the President, 
March 3, 1887. 

Up to this time there was no division of sentiment in Con¬ 
gress nor with the people. We were all Americans and fully 
determined that American citizens, whether on sea or land, 
whether in Africa, on the islands of the Pacific, or in the bays 
and harbors of the Dominion of Canada, should be protected 
in all their rights and permitted to enjoy all their privileges. 
The President never availed himself of the provisions of this 
law though the outrages continued, but on the contrary, in 
opposition to the expressed will and judgment of Congress, 
commenced to negotiate an adjustment of these difficulties 
diplomatically, by securing the American rights in part, at the 
price of yielding the most fundamental and important of them 
all. 

On the 22d of November, 1887, he appointed three pleni¬ 
potentiaries to consider, with like plenipotentiaries appointed 
by her Majesty, the whole subject and, if possible, secure a 
solution thereof. These officials entered upon their duties im¬ 
mediately, in the city of Washington, and finally, on the 15th 
of February, 1888, the President of the United States sub¬ 
mitted to the Senate a treaty, the result of their deliberations. 

Thus once more we are driven by the peculiar tactics of the 
Dominion of Canada to a surrender. The President, the 
Secretary of State, and the lesser lights of a Democratic 
administration promptly proclaim to the country the marvel¬ 
ous advantages secured, urge the immediate ratification of the 
treaty, and charge its opponents with offensive partisanship. 
Now if this treaty is ratified, what are our gains? What advan¬ 
tages have we secured, and what is the price we have paid? 

First. Delimitation. 

From what waters were we excluded by the terms of the 
treaty of 1818 ? From then until now we have insisted that 
those waters were included within a line drawn three miles from 
the shore, and from bays, harbors, etc., not exceeding six miles 
in width at their mouths. Great Britain contended, shortly 
after the treaty was made, that its terms excluded us from all 
of their bays, harbors, etc., drawing the line of exclusion three 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


150 

miles outside of a line across from headland to headland, but 
immediately thereafter instructed her Canadian officials that 
the theory must not be enforced. 

Twice, and it may be three times since then, the same 
theory has been promulgated, but it never has been reduced to 
practice from that day to the present. Only two attempts to 
enforce it can be found—one, in 1843, 1^^^ seizure of the 

schooner Was/iin^ion, while fishing in the Bay of Fundy more 
than three miles from the shore; the other, of the schooner 
Ar^iis, in a Cape Breton Island bay. Our government claimed 
that the seizures were illegal. The claims were submitted to 
arbitrators, of whose finding Secretary Bayard says: 

“ In delivering judgment in the case of the Washington, the 
umpire considered the headland theory and pronounced it 
‘ new doctrine.’ He noted among other facts that one of the 
headlands of the Bay of Fundy was in the United States, but 
did not place the decision on that ground. And immediately 
in the next case, that of the Argus, heard by him and decided 
on the same day, he wholly discarded the headland theory and 
made an award in favor of the owners. The Argus was seized^ 
not in the Bay of Fundy, but because (although more than 
three miles from land) she was found fishing within a line 
drawn from headland to headland, from Cow Bay to Cape 
North, on the northeast side of Cape Breton Island.” 

In 1853 our government dispatched a small naval force to 
the eastern limit of the United States, for the purpose of 
affording protection to citizens engaged in the fisheries. The 
Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Dobbin, in issuing his instructions 
to Commodore Shubrick, in command of the squadron, touch¬ 
ing the contention of Great Britain that three marine miles are 
to be measured from headland to headland, used the following 
language: 

“ The President entertains the opinion that our citizens,, 
under the convention of 1818, have a right to enter the bays 
and harbors and to take fish there, provided they do not 
approach within three marine miles of the shore; and he 
further entertains the opinion that the clause which authorizes 
expressly the entering into bays and harbors for the purpose of 


OUR FISHERIES. 


51 


shelter, etc., precludes the idea that it therein alluded to large 
open bays such as the Bay of Chaleur, which affords but little 
better shelter than the open sea, and confirms him in his 
opinion that the restriction was designed to be applicable to 
narrow, small bays and harbors in which an entrance could not 
be effected without approaching within three marine miles of 
the shore.” 

The entire history of Canadian outrages committed for the 
purpose of securing our markets discloses only the two instances 
of seizures of vessels for fishing outside of the three-mile shore 
line, or of bays and harbors six miles wide at their entrance,, 
already referred to, to wit, the Washmgton and the Argus. 

During the past two years, when the Dominion seemed 
to seek every possible opportunity to annoy, to disturb, and to 
injure our fishermen, there is not an instance to be found in 
which she went to the extent of seizing a vessel for fishing out¬ 
side of such a line. Before the Halifax Commission (which 
made the award by the vote of the British Commissioner and 
the Belgian Commissioner, Mr. Del Fosse, who was thoroughly 
British in all his conduct in that affair), where the Canadians 
did not hesitate to increase the amount of the award by the 
grossest exaggerations of the value of their in-shore fisheries,, 
and where it is entirely apparent that the purpose was to 
obtain the largest possible amount, they did not even make a 
claim that we should pay for fish taken, or rights and privileges 
enjoyed, outside of the three-mile shore-line, or of bays and 
harbors six miles wide at their entrance. 

It is entirely safe to say that the English headland theory 
has never been anything but theoretical. Sir Charles Tupper, 
in presenting this treaty to the Dominion Parliament, practi¬ 
cally takes this ground. The officials of Canada have never en¬ 
forced it, and we during the entire seventy years have never 
yielded to it. We admit that we are not entitled to take fish 
within three miles of the Canadian shore, or within the bays, 
harbors, etc., six miles wide, partitioned to the exclusive use of 
the Dominion of Canada by the treaty of 1818. We do not 
now admit, nor have we ever admitted anything more. 

Such being the American position, what, if anything, do we 


152 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


gain or lose by the present treaty in this regard ? Article 
3 provides that the three marine miles mentioned in the 
treaty of i8i8 “shall be measured seaward from low-water 
mark; but at every bay, creek, or harbor, not otherwise 
specially provided for in this treaty such three marine miles 
shall be measured seaward from a straight line drawn across 
the bay, creek, or harbor in the part nearest the entrance at the 
first point where the width does not exceed ten marine miles.’' 

Now, as the three-mile shore-line is to be measured outside 
the ten mile line, it is entirely apparent that this single article 
doubles, nearly, (over our contention,) the excluded waters as to 
bays, etc. Not content with this generous surrender, the 
treaty in Article 4 makes a present to Great Britain cf 
waters in which no American fisherman shall ever have a right 
to fish, as follows: Bay Des Chaleurs, Miramichi Bay, Egmont 
Bay, St. Ann’s Bay, Fortune Bay, Sir Charles Hamilton’s 
Sound, Barrington Bay, Chedabucto and St. Peter’s Bay, Mira 
Bay, Placentia Bay, and St. Mary’s Bay. These excluded bays 
are from twelve to twenty-two miles wide at the line of delimi¬ 
tation, and many of them afford fine fishing-grounds for mack¬ 
erel, herring, codfish, pollock, and halibut. They are not sur¬ 
rendered for the life of the treaty, but forever. 

But the plenipotentiaries did not stop here. Article 5 of 
the treaty surrenders all bays, creeks, or harbors which cannot 
be reached from the sea without passing within the three 
marine miles mentioned in article i of the convention of 
October 20, 1818. No one unfamiliar with this coast and with 
its waters can tell how much is conceded by this article, but 
Sir Charles Tupper admits that it was inserted at his request, 
and one may safely assume that it is not harmless to us in its 
results. 

It is apparent that by this delimitation the waters from 
which we are excluded are largely increased. It is claimed in 
excuse that we do not desire to fish in them; that our fisher¬ 
men so testified. Our fishermen only testified that they had 
no wish to fish within the three-mile shore-line, and in bays, 
harbors, and creeks that were six miles wide at their entrance. 
It never occurred to them that there might be a treaty by 


OUR FISHERIES. 


153 


which this line should be extended to bays sixteen, eighteen^ 
and twenty miles wide at the mouth. It is impossible for any 
man to say to-day how soon these bays may become of great 
importance for fisheries. 

But outside of the limitation upon our right to fish, a serious 
trouble arises. Suppose that Congress should not place upon 
the free list fish, and give to Canada what Sir Charles Tupper 
in his speech practically intimates Democratic statesmen said 
should be given, and she is left to seek her coveted treasure, 
our market, by the methods she has heretofore resorted to. 
The opportunities to harass, insult, outrage, fine, and confiscate; 
the difficulties on the part of our fishermen of determining 
their position, whether within or without the delimited waters, 
—are increased tenfold at least. While it may be possible with¬ 
out great trouble to determine whether or not a vessel is within 
the three-mile shore line, or within a bay, creek, or harbor six 
miles wide, it must be apparent to any one that it is more 
serious, a hundredfold, when the bays are increased in width 
sixteen, eighteen, and twenty miles, and when the line from 
lighthouse to lighthouse may be 60 miles away from the end of 
the bay. 

Second. The strait of Canso has always been open to our 
vessels. No pretense from 1818 to the present time has ever 
been made that we had not the right of free passage through its 
waters, and no one dreams that it would ever be closed. Article 
9 says that “nothing in this treaty shall interrupt or affect 
the free navigation of the strait of Canso by fishing vessels of 
the United States;” and the President of the United States 
congratulates us on that immense gain! But Sir Charles 
Tupper, in his speech to the Dominion Parliament, says that 
the Article was rendered necessary by the fact that we delimit, 
in the treaty, Chedabucta Bay, which covers the mouth of the 
strait. 

Third. The President and his Secretary of State call especial 
attention to the relief afforded our distressed vessels from entry 
in less than twenty-four hours, from compulsory pilotage, etc., 
and commend to the consideration of the people the humane 
provisions of Articles 10 and ii. To be sure Article 10 does 


154 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


relieve our fishing vessels from entry in less than twenty-four 
hours, if driven into Canadian harbors by stress of weather. 
Is that a concession ? Why, we have always claimed that in any 
Canadian port, harbor, or creek, for shelter, we ought not to be 
compelled to enter in less than twenty-four hours, and there is 
not a civilized nation in the world that would require it of us. 
No instance can be found in which a Canadian vessel, under like 
circumstances, coming into our harbors has been compelled to 
report and enter in that time. Article lo further relieves these 
vessels from compulsory pilotage. But there is no compulsory 
pilotage in the Dominion of Canada for fishing vessels eighty 
tons and under, and the average of our fishing vessels does not 
exceed that. Besides, in another article in the treaty it is pro¬ 
vided that Canadian vessels shall enjoy such privileges in our 
ports and harbors as are given to our vessels in Canadian ports 
and harbors, and as we have no such limitation in our com¬ 
pulsory pilotage laws as eighty tons, the balance of benefit here 
would decidedly be for Canada. No American fisherman is 
ever heard to complain of the payment of pilotage; so this is 
no favor to us. 

Article ii of the treaty provides that American fishing 
vessels, forced into Canadian harbors under stress of weather or 
other casualty, “may unload, reload, transship or sell, subject 
to customs laws and regulations, all fish on board, when such un¬ 
loading, transshipment, or sale is made necessary as incidental 
to repairs, and may replenish outfits, provisions and supplies 
damaged or lost by disaster; and in case of death or sickness 
shall be allowed all needful facilities, including the shipping of 
crews.” It provides, further, that if they obtain licenses they 
may purchase such provisions and supplies as are ordinarily 
sold to trading vessels, necessary for the homeward voyage. 

In other words, the treaty gives us that which no civilized 
nation on the face of the earth would deny to the vessel of any 
nation in distress. It gives to us that which it is discreditable 
to any nation to make a right, under a treaty. It gives to us 
that which humanity and civilization, as well as common 
decency, demand shall be given without let or hindrance. It 
gives to us, almost in words, what we compelled Algiers to give 










9 











































OUR FISHERIES. 


155 


US in a treaty we made with her in 1815. It gives to us no 
more than, nor so much as, the people on the islands off the 
coast of China recently gave our wrecked vessels, for which 
Congress returned them thanks, and not so much as the Esqui¬ 
maux have, over and over again, granted of their own free will 
and pleasure. 

Fourth. We claim the right to equip our vessels with such 
papers as we ourselves shall determine by law, giving to one a 
register, to another an enrollment, and to another a license. If 
we reverse that rule and give to the licensed vessel a register, 
or if we give to the licensed vessel a permit to touch and trade, 
our right to do so is beyond question, and no nation can inter¬ 
fere with us in this regard. And yet the Dominion of Canada 
insists that the papers with which we arm our vessels are of no 
authority, and in this treaty their right to interfere in this 
regard is admitted in Article 13, which provides just how our 
vessels shall be designated by official numbers on bows, etc. 

Fifth. Article 14 contains the legal amenities of the treaty, 
and they are amazingly generous, yielded in the nineteenth 
century by a neighboring nation! If one of our fishing vessels 
captures a mackerel for breakfast in the delimited water, no 
greater penalty shall be paid than the forfeiture of vessel and 
cargo ! If a hook is baited, or a seine is mended with the inten¬ 
tion of so fishing, the punishment shall not exceed forfeiture! 
For lesser offences three dollars a ton shall be the measure! 
Security for costs shall not be required so long as vessels and 
cargo are held, nor shall unreasonable bail be exacted. That 
these rights can be secured only by a solemn treaty, and must 
be paid for, requires no comment. 

Sixth. By the terms of the treaty of 1818 we reserve to 
our fishing vessels the right to enter British waters for shelter, 
for repairs, to purchase wood and to take water, “ and for no 
other purpose whatever.” Under this article the Dominion of 
Canada insists that in the waters partitioned to them, our fish¬ 
ing vessels in their ports, etc., can have no privileges and no 
rights whatsoever beyond those named in the bond ; that they 
cannot be permitted to buy flour or bread, beef or ice, bait or 
anything else except wood; and indeed they have gone so far 


156 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


as to insist that under the term ‘"wood” they did not include 
coal, and refused the fishing steamer Novelty permission to 
buy. We, on the contrary, have insisted that while from i8i8, 
for twelve years thereafter, it is true our fishermen were to 
enjoy the privileges of harbor and shelter, repairs of damage, 
purchase of wood and taking of water only, yet since October 
5, 1830, they and all other vessels of the United States of 
America were entitled to be treated in the harbors, bays, and 
creeks of the Dominion of Canada on terms of perfect equality 
of flag with the British American dependencies. We have 
insisted, and never have yielded in that insistance, that the acts 
of Congress and the British Orders in Council of 1830, with the 
proclamation of President Jackson in the same year, gave to all 
of our vessels, of whatever character, registered, enrolled, or 
licensed, complete commercial privileges in all the ports of the 
Dominion of Canada to the same extent they give to the 
vessels of the Dominion of Canada and of Great Britain rights 
and privileges in our ports. 

Practically we, on our part, have lived up to that understand¬ 
ing from 1830 down to the present time. Secretary Bayard 
insisted upon those commercial rights and privileges up to the 
time he was appointed by the President a Plenipotentiary to 
negotiate this treaty. In 1886, in presenting to the British 
Government the case of the Annie M. Jordan, prohibited from 
buying bait, under date of June 7th, Mr. Bayard says: 

I earnestly protest against this unwarranted withholding of 
lawful commercial privileges from an American vessel and her 
owners, and for the loss and damage consequent thereon the 
Government of Great Britain will be held liable.” 

Again, in his letter to Sir Lionel West, May 10, 1886, he 
says: 

“ I may recall to your attention the fact that a proposition 
to exclude the vessels of the United States engaged in fishing 
from carrying also merchandise was made by the British nego¬ 
tiators of the treaty of 1818, but, being resisted by the Ameri¬ 
can negotiators, was abandoned. This fact would seem clearly 
to indicate that the business of fishing did not then and does 


OUR Fl^IERIES. 157 

not now disqualify a vessel from trading at the regular ports of 
entry.” 

Again, on July loth of the same year, on a threat being 
made to seize American boats for buying herring in Canadian 
waters, he said: 

“ Such inhibition of usual and legitimate commercial con¬ 
tracts and intercourse is assuredly without warrant of law, and 
I draw your attention to it in order that the commercial rights 
of citizens of the United States may not thus be invaded and 
subjected to unfriendly discrimination.” 

Take the case of the steamer Novelty, denied the right to 
buy coal and ice and to transship fish in bond. Under date of 
July 10, 1886, Secretary Bayard says: 

“Against this treatment I make instant and formal protest 
as an unwarranted interpretation and application of the treaty 
by the officers of the Dominion of Canada and Province of 
Nova Scotia, as an infraction of the laws of commercial and 
martitime intercourse existing between the two countries, and 
as a violation of hospitality, and for any loss or injury resulting 
therefrom the Government of her Britannic Majesty will be 
held liable.” 

Take the case of the Mollie Adams, which in a gale burst 
her water-tanks, put in for water, asked permission to buy a 
few barrels to hold it for her homeward voyage, and was threat¬ 
ened with seizure on that account. Under date of September 
lOth Secretary Bayard says : 

“ This inhospitable, indeed inhuman, conduct on the part 
of the customs officer in question should be severely reprimand¬ 
ed, and for the infraction of treaty rights and commercial 
privileges compensation equivalent to the injuries sustained 
will be claimed from her Majesty’s Government.” 

And so on, over and over again, in scores of cases during 
the year 1886 our Secretary of State in unmistakable terms 
claimed of the British Government that we were entitled to 
all the commercial rights and privileges their vessels were re¬ 
ceiving and were entitled to in the ports of the United States. 

On the lOth of May, 1886, in a communication to Sir 
Lionel West, Secretary Bayard says: 


158 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


“President Jackson’s proclamation of October 5, 1830, 
created a reciprocal commercial intercourse on terms of perfect 
equality of flag between this country and the British-American 
dependencies by repealing the navigation acts of April 18, 1818, 
May 15, 1820, and March i, 1823, and admitting British vessels 
and their cargoes ‘ to an entry in the ports of the United 
States from the islands, provinces, and colonies of Great Brit¬ 
ain on or near the American continent, and north or east of the 
United States.’ These commercial privileges have since re¬ 
ceived a large extension in the interests of propinquity, and in 
some cases favors have been granted by the United States 
without equivalent concession.” 

Mr. Phelps, our minister to England, in his statement of 
our case to Lord Rosebery under date of London, June 2, 
1886, alluding to the case of the David J. Adams, seized for 
purchasing bait, says: 

“ Recurring, then, to the only real question in the case, 
whether the vessel is to be forfeited for purchasing bait of an 
inhabitant of Nova Scotia, to be used in lawful fishing, it may 
be readily admitted that if the language of the treaty of 1818 
is to be interpreted literally, rather than according to its spirit 
and plain intent, a vessel engaged in fishing would be prohib¬ 
ited from entering a Canadian port ‘ for any purpose whatever ’ 
except to obtain wood or water, to repair damages, or to seek 
shelter. 

“ Such a literal construction is best refuted by considering 
its preposterous consequences. If a vessel enters a port to 
post a letter, or send a telegram, or buy a newspaper, to obtain 
a physician in case of illness, or a surgeon in case of accident, 
to land or bring off a passenger, or even to lend assistance to 
the inhabitants in fire, flood, or pestilence, it would, upon this 
construction, be held to violate the treaty stipulations main¬ 
tained between two enlightened maritime and most friendly 
nations, whose ports are freely open to each other in all other 
places and under all other circumstances. If a vessel is not 
engaged in fishing she may enter all ports; but if employed in 
fishing, not denied to be lawful, she is excluded, though on the 
most innocent errand. She may buy water, but not food or 


OUR FISHERIES. 


159 


medicine ; wood, but not coal. She may repair rigging, but 
not purchase a new rope, though the inhabitants are desirous 
to sell it. If she even entered the port (having no other busi¬ 
ness) to report herself to the custom-house, as the vessel in 
question is now seized for not doing, she would be equally 
within the interdiction of the treaty. If it be said these are 
extreme instances of violation of the treaty not likely to be in¬ 
sisted on, I reply that no one of them is more extreme than 
the one relied upon in this case.” 

He cites recognition, in official documents, of the right of 
our fishermen to commercial privileges, among others the letter 
of Lord Kimberly in 1871 to the Governor-General of Canada, 
as follows: 

“ The exclusion of American fishermen from resorting to 
Canadian ports, except for the purpose of shelter, and of re¬ 
pairing damages therein, purchasing wood, and of obtaining 
water, might be warranted by the letter of the treaty of 1818, 
and by the terms of the imperial act 59 George III., chap. 38, 
but her Majesty’s Government feel bound to state that it 
seems to them an extreme measure, inconsistent with the'gen- 
eral policy of the Empire, and they are disposed to concede this 
point to the United States Government under such restrictions 
as may be necessary to prevent smuggling, and to guard 
against any substantial invasion of the exclusive rights of fish¬ 
ing which may be reserved to British subjects.” 

He further says : 

“Judicial authority upon this question is to the same 
effect. That the purchase of bait by American fishermen in 
the provincial ports has been a common practice is well known. 
But in no case, so far as I can ascertain, has a seizure of an 
American vessel ever been enforced on the ground of the pur¬ 
chase of bait, or of any other supplies. On the hearing before 
the Halifax Fisheries Commission in 1877 this question was 
discussed, and no case could be produced of any such condem¬ 
nation. And in the case of the W/izfe Fawn, tried in the ad¬ 
miralty court of New Brunswick before Judge Hazen in 1870, 
I understand it to have been distinctly held that the purchase 
of bait, unless proved to have been in preparation for illegal 


i6o 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


fishing, was not a violation of the treaty, nor of any existing 
law, and afforded no ground for proceedings against the vessel.’’ 

On the 18th of June, 1886, Secretary Bayard indorsed in 
the warmest terms Mr. Phelps’ presentation of our case. The 
Committee on P'oreign Affairs of the House, in its majority 
Democratic, through its Chairman, Mr. Belmont, in relation to 
commercial privileges says: 

“ The treaty of 1818 furnishes no more excuse for the ex¬ 
clusion of a deep-sea fisherman from the port of Halifax or any 
other open port of the Dominion of Canada than for the exclu¬ 
sion by the Secretary of the Treasury of a deep-sea fisherman 
from entering the port of New York according to the forms of 
law and for the ordinary purposes of trade and commerce. 
The exclusion if made must be justified, if at all, for other 
reasons than any yet given by Canada.” 

Again: 

“ Unless English words were in 1818 used in that article in 
an unusual sense, there is not a sentence or word therein that 
has reference to anything else than taking, drying, or curing 
fish by American fishermen on or within certain coasts, bays, 
creeks, or harbors therein described. No word or phrase men¬ 
tioned alludes or refers to deep-sea fishing or ordinary commer¬ 
cial privileges. The restrictions refer only to fishing or drying 
or curing in such bays or harbors.” 

Again it says thatthe conduct of the Dominion of Canada 
has been not only in violation of the treaty stipulations and 
international comity, but that during the fishing season just 
passed it has been inhuman, as the message of the President 
clearly shows.” 

And Secretary Manning in September, 1886, in a communi¬ 
cation sent to Congress touching these fishery matters, said: 

“ But the Canadian act, thus having the royal approval, 
was intended, as has been openly avowed, to forfeit any 
American fishing vessel which is found having entered Canadian 
waters, or the port of Halifax, to buy ice, bait, or other articles, 
or for any purpose other than shelter, repairs, wood, or water. 
The plea is that the treaty of 1818 permits and stipulates for 
such legislation. That we deny, and reply that such legislation 


OUR FISHERIES. 


l6l 


is a repeal and annulment by England of the arrangement 
made in 1830, and to that repeal we are entitled to respond by 
a similar repeal of our own law, and by a refusal hereafter, and 
while debate or negotiation goes on, to confer hospitality, or 
any privileges whatever, in our ports, on Canadian vessels or 
boats of any sort. A violation of comity may be looked upon 
as an unfriendly act, but not a cause for a just war. England 
may judge for herself of the nature and extent of the comity 
and courtesy she will show to us. In the present case we do 
not propose retaliation ; we simply respond. We, too, suspend 
comity and hospitality.” 

Indeed, since these difficulties began between the Dominion 
of Canada and the United States (all of them*, nearly, arising 
from an attempt on the part of American vessels to avail them¬ 
selves of commercial privileges in Canadian ports), and subse¬ 
quent to 1830 up to the date of the remission of this treaty by 
the President of the United States to the Senate, there cannot 
be found a single utterance of any American statesman, 
Republican or Democrat, yielding one jot or one tittle of full 
and complete commercial rights and privileges for our fishing 
vessels in the ports of the Dominion of Canada, the same as we 
give to their vessels in ours. 

And yet in Article 15 of this treaty there is a humiliating, 
dishonorable and cowardly surrender of this entire claim ; and 
it is admitted that no fishing vessel of the United States, 
whether armed with a permit to touch and trade or not, has 
any right to buy in any Canadian port, in emergency of any 
kind whatsoever, except as is provided in Article ii, any article 
of merchandise whatsoever, necessary to the prosecution of her 
business. And it is provided, in that Article, that we never 
shall enjoy any such commercial privileges whatsoever unless 
we purchase them by a surrender of our market to Canada. 

The last year of the treaty of Washington, by which, for 
the privilege of fishing within the three-mile shore line, we 
remitted duties on fish imported into this country by Canada, 
the remission, as has been stated before, amounted to nearly 
$700,000. To-day, if a law, it would amount to over a million 
dollars; and it will go on increasing in the future, so that, by 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


162 

Article 15, if we desire to purchase in a Canadian port bait or 
ice, sails or boats, or anything necessary for the prosecution of 
our business, we can have that privilege by paying for it from a 
million to two million dollars a year. 

Seventh. One thing which we also obtain for this great price 
is the transshipment of catch in Canadian ports. Article 29 of 
the treaty of Washington was as follows: 

“ It is further agreed that for the like period, goods, wares 
or merchandise, arriving at any of the ports of Her Britannic 
Majesty’s possessions in North America and destined for the 
United States, may be entered at the proper custom-house and 
conveyed in transit, without the payment of duties, through the 
said possessions, under such rules and regulations and conditions 
for the protection of the revenue as the governments of said 
possessions may from time to time prescribe; and under like 
rules, regulations and conditions, goods, wares or merchandise 
may be conveyed in transit, without payment of duties, from 
the United States through the said possessions to other places 
in the United States, or for export from ports in the said pos¬ 
sessions.” 

Under that Article (never abrogated) Canada is enjoying, 
and has been ever since it took effect, to the fullest and com- 
pletest extent, all the privileges it provides for. It has been of 
immense advantage to her business interests, to her railroads 
and her canals. Since the enactment of our interstate commerce 
law, it has given her undue advantage over our own trans-con¬ 
tinental lines of road, and at their cost immensely benefited 
hers. It is not too much to say, that shut up as Canada is for 
six months in the year by her climate, without the privileges 
here provided for, she would be terribly cramped, and her 
interests would suffer most seriously. And yet by Article 15, 
if we wish to transship a barrel of mackerel in one of her ports, 
unless there in distress, we can be permitted to do it only by 
paying from a million dollars and upwards annually for the 
privilege. 

Now where in this treaty is there anything gained to us? 
Is it not in all regards a surrender ? Even if rejected, has not 
the President inflicted upon us a great wrong? Mr. Chamber- 


OUR FISHERIES. 


163 

lain, in a speech made at a banquet after his return home to 
England, declared that even if the Senate should reject the 
treaty, immense concessions had been made, and our Govern¬ 
ment could not repeat its demands hereafter. Sir Charles 
Tupper intimated a like condition, if rejection should follow. 
The Montreal Gazette under date of March ist says: 

“If we have to revert to the condition of things which pre¬ 
vailed in 1886 and in 1887, there will be general regret; but at 
least Canadians can have this satisfaction, that in reverting to 
the treaty of 1818 we do so with our position infinitely 
strengthened by the formal acknowledgment on the part of 
President Cleveland and his government, that all our conten¬ 
tions are right.” 

The negotiation, the treaty, the message of the President of 
the United States, the speeches and proclamations of the 
Secretary oTState in behalf of this treaty, the earnest and zeal¬ 
ous efforts of the administration to induce its ratification, the 
arraying of the Democratic party in Congress for it (whether 
it may be rejected by the United States Senate or not), can be 
productive only of evil, and tend only to weaken or-destroy 
the American sentiment which so prevailed in the Forty ninth 
Congress. Already administration papers begin to sneer at 
American fishermen, and to talk about “buying them up.” 
Even the President of the United States singles out the fishery 
industry for attack, and writes a letter to a district-attorney 
in Massachusetts, calling his attention to violations of law in 
the importations of Canadian sailors, while since he has been 
President thousands of contract laborers on railroads have been 
imported, and complaints have been made to his attorney- 
general, presumably to him, without eliciting from him the 
mildest protest. 

The next move of the Democratic administration will be a 
compulsory process against Congress, to force the enactment 
of a law placing fish on the free list, and thus surrender to 
Canada the market to obtain which she has committed these 
“brutal” outrages, and almost placed herself outside the pale 
of civilization. Sir Charles Tupper, in his speech on the treaty 
in the Canadian Parliament, practically says this was promised 


164 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


him. Why should the American fishermen be selected for this, 
sacrifice ? 

The Republic itself has a deep and an abiding interest in 
this industry. Can it see with indifference its gradual decay, 
and regard without lively concern its certain extinction ? Will 
it enter no protest against the deadly blows struck by its own 
treaty-making power? Has it forgotten that its proud position 
was largely won by the endurance, skill, courage, and fidelity 
of these sailors; that Louisburg was wrested from the French 
by their valor, and that these very waters, now in contention, 
were secured to Great Britain by their courage ? Can she be 
unmindful of their conspicuous services in the war for our in¬ 
dependence ? 

Who will deny that the glories we won in 1812 on lake and 
on sea were their achievement ? Who does not know that in 
our last terrible struggle for life there was not a deck of our 
fleet unmoistened with their blood ^ If we ever have another 
war, which God forbid, it will be on the sea. Who shall man 
our fleet? It is asserted, and I believe truly, that 85 per cent 
of the sailors employed in our ocean foreign-carrying trade are 
foreigners, owing our country no allegiance, and inspired by no 
love for our flag. They surely would be a broken reed in the 
hour of national peril. Of the men in our fishing fleet 80 per 
cent are American citizens, 65 per cent of American birth. 
Inured to every hardship, exposed to constant danger, fighting 
a ceaseless battle with wind and wave, loving freedom for free¬ 
dom’s sake, and ready on call to defend their rights; courage¬ 
ous, skilled, and patriotic—they are to-day the best and most 
reliable sailors in the world, and to a man would promptly re¬ 
spond to their country’s call. 

The American fishermen are assuredly entitled to encour¬ 
agement and protection by our government, and they may be 
certain that the Republican party, true to its instincts, will 
stand by them until all their rights are secured. 


THE AMERICAN NAVY. 


165 


THE AMERICAN NAVY. 

By Hon. Wm. E. Chandler, U. S. Senator from New Hampshire. 

Coming into power on the 4th of March, 1861, the Republi¬ 
can party found the slave-holding States seceding from the 
Union and ready to begin civil war. 

The condition of the navy is described in the official reports 
of Secretary Welles. There were in commission but 42 ships, 
built of wood and carrying only smooth-bore cannon. “ These 
vessels had a complement, exclusive of officers and marines, of 
about 7600 men, and nearly all of them were on foreign stations. 
The home squadron consisted of 12 vessels, carrying 187 guns 
and about 2000 men. Of this squadron 07 ily four small vessels, 
carrying 25 gtms a 7 id abotit 280 men, were in Northern ports.'* 
Four were at Pensacola, and four were returning from Mexico. 

Mr. Welles said : “ Neither the expiring administration nor 
Congress, which had been in session until the 4th of March, 
had taken measures to increase or strengthen our naval power, 
notwithstanding the lowering aspect of our public affairs; so 
that when a few weeks after the inauguration I desired troops 
for the protection of the public property at Norfolk and An¬ 
napolis, or sailors to man and remove the vessels, neither 
soldiers nor sailors could be procured. There were no men to 
man our ships, nor were the few ships at our yards in condition 
to be put into immediate service.” He also said : ‘‘ With so few 
vessels in commission on our coast, and our crews in distant 
seas, the Department was very indifferently prepared to meet 
the exigency that was rising. Every movement was closely 
watched by the disaffected, and threatened to precipitate meas¬ 
ures that the country seemed anxious to avoid. Demoraliza¬ 
tion prevailed among the officers, many of whom, occupying 
the most responsible positions, betrayed symptoms of that im 
fidelity which has dishonored the service. But while so many 


i66 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


officers were unfaithful, the crews, to their honor be it recorded, 
were true and reliable, and have maintained through every trial 
and under all circumstances their devotion to the Union and 
the flag. Unfortunately, however, few comparatively of these 
gallant men were within the call of the Department at that 
eventful period. They, as well as the ships, were abroad.” 

Thus it appears that because James Buchanan, a Demo¬ 
cratic President, was weak and unfaithful to his high trust, and 
Isaac Toucey, a Democratic Secretary of the Navy, was at 
heart a traitor, the navy of the United States had been so 
managed as to offer as little hindrance as possible to the prog¬ 
ress of the rebellion. The Republican administration, how¬ 
ever, did the best it could. Mr. Welles in 1862 describes the 
progress made as follows: 

“ The result is that we have at this time afloat or progress¬ 
ing to rapid completion a naval force consisting of 427 vessels, 
there having been added to those of the old navy enumerated 
in my report of July, 1861, exclusive of those that were lost, 
353 vessels armed in the aggregate with 1577 guns, and of the 
capacity of 240,028 tons. The annals of the world do not show 
so great an increase in so brief a period to the naval power of 
any country.” 

On December 4, 1865, Mr. Welles sums up what had been 
done by the navy in putting down the rebellion thus: 

“ From 7600 men in the service at the commencement of 
the rebellion, the number was increased to 51,500 at its close. 
In addition to these the aggregate of artisans and laborers em¬ 
ployed in the navy yards was 16,880, instead of 3844 previously 
in the pay of the government. This is exclusive of those em¬ 
ployed in private ship yards and establishments, under con¬ 
tracts, constituting an almost equal aggregate number. Two 
hundred and eight (208) vessels have been commenced and 
most of them fitted for service during this period. A few of 
the larger ones will require still further time for completion. 
Only steamers, the propellers also having sailing power, have 
been built by the government during my administration of the 
Department. Since the 4th of March, 1861, 418 vessels have 
been purchased, of which 313 were steamers, at a cost of 


THE AMERICAN NAVY. 167 

$18,366,681.83, and of these there have been sold 340 vessels, 
for which the government has received $5,621,800.27.” 

The work of the navy in suppressing the rebellion was not 
entirely performed in vessels of wood, but, aided by the genius 
of Captain John Ericsson, the United States built the first tur- 
reted iron-clads known to the world, and the monitor type of 
vessels so well adapted to our coasts, was introduced into naval 
warfare. The whole extraordinary army and navy expendi¬ 
ture for putting down the slave-holders’ rebellion has been esti¬ 
mated at $6,189,929,908.58, of which the naval payments were 
$421,281,166.42.* 

The glory of the brilliant exploits of the officers and men 
of the navy thus organized to fight in the ships of the nation 
the war for the Union is not to be appropriated by a political 
party ; but the Republican party certainly can rejoice over the 
Union victories which were achieved on land and ocean with 
far more fervor than can the Democratic party, which caused 
and prolonged the bloody strife. 

The illustrated “ Naval History of the Civil War,” lately 
written, impartially and most attractively, by Admiral Porter, 
well presents the names, the forms, and the achievements of 
our naval heroes, and they may be contemplated with pride by 
all the Republicans of the country. There is also a record 
which will be even more permanent than the narrative of the 
great admiral. The thanks of Congress were given February 
22, 1862, to Captain Samuel F. Dupont for the decisive and 
splendid victory at Port Royal; March 19 and July 16, 1862, 
to Captain A. H. Foote for gallantry in the attacks upon Forts 
Henry and Donelson and Island No. 10, and for opening the 
Tennessee, Cumberland, and Mississippi rivers; July ii, 1862, 
and February 3, 1863, to Lieutenant J. L. Worden for skill and 
gallantry in the battle between the Monitor and Merrimac; 
July II, 1862, to Captain, and February 16, 1866, to Vice- 
Admiral, David G. Farragut for the capture of Forts Jackson 
and St. Philip and the city of New Orleans, and unsurpassed 
gallantry and skill in the engagement in Mobile Bay; July 11, 


Forty-eighth Congress, 2 d Session, Senate Executive Document 2o6‘ 




i68 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


\ 

1862, to Captain Louis M. Goldsborough for the brilliant and 
decisive victory at Roanoke Island ; February 7, 1863, to Com¬ 
modore Charles Henry Davis for services at Fort Pillow and 
Memphis and in the Mississippi River, to Captain Stephen C. 
Rowan for distinguished services in the waters of North Caro¬ 
lina and in the capture of Newbern, and to Rear-Admiral Silas 
H. Stringham for the capture of Forts Hatteras and Clark; 
December 23, 1863, to Captain John Rodgers for capturing the 
Atlmita with the Weehawken; February 7, 1863, to Com¬ 
mander, and April 19, 1864, and January 24, 1865, to Admiral, 
David D. Porter for the capture of Arkansas Post, for opening 
the Mississippi River, and for capturing Fort Fisher; December 
20, 1864, to Captain John A. Winslow for the brilliant action 
between the Kearsarge and the piratical craft Alabama^ and to 
Lieutenant William B. Cushing for the destruction of the 
Albemarle; and Congress included in their formal commenda¬ 
tion all the subordinate officers and the seamen and marines 
who aided these naval heroes in their deeds of glory. These 
thanks went out with special fervor from the hearts of the 
Republicans of the North, who without doubt or hesitancy 
Were sustaining the cause of the Union in which our naval 
victories were won. 

In 1865, immediately upon the close of the war, the Repub¬ 
lican party lost the control of the executive branch of the 
government through the assassination of Mr. Lincoln and the 
abandonment by his successor, Mr. Johnson, of the party which 
had elected him Vice-President. The naval work of this admin¬ 
istration was mainly selling those vessels of the great national 
fleet which were no longer needed and reducing the force of 
officers and men in the naval service to the former numbers. 
The Republican party resumed executive power under Presi¬ 
dent Grant in 1869. He announced himself as opposed to keep¬ 
ing the navy on its inferior footing “ by the repairing and refit¬ 
ting of our old ships.” Under him a few new wooden ships were 
built, being the sloops-of-war Trenton^ Adams, Essex, Enterprise, 
Alliance, Alert, Huron, and Ranger. It shortly became evident, 
however, that a great change in the conditions governing naval 
construction and naval warfare had taken place. European 


THE AMERICAN NAVY. 


169 


nations, which had begun building iron-armored vessels before 
our war, had also adopted and developed our invention of the 
monitor type of ships, and it soon appeared probable that the 
days of wooden navies were ended and that the war-ship of the 
future would be built of iron or steel. It also became apparent 
that the navy yards which had in 1861 been transferred with 
the wooden ships by the Democratic to the Republican admin¬ 
istration had brought with them most unbusiness-like and per¬ 
nicious methods of doing work. It could be readily seen that 
a revolution before long was to be effected in the character of 
war-ships and their armament and in the modes of naval con¬ 
struction. 

Before, however, this necessity for a new modern fleet of 
iron or steel was fully developed the national House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, as the result of the election in November, 1874, 
became Democratic, and so remained for six years. During 
this period the House in dealing with naval matters, while em¬ 
barrassing the service by petty attempts to cut down needful 
expenditures and by continually making partisan assaults upon 
the administration of the Navy Department, made no efforts 
whatever towards real reform in naval methods, and did nothing 
whatever towards the reconstruction of the navy. 

Five double-turreted monitors, the Miantonomoh, Monad- 
nock, Amphitrite, Terror, and Puritan, had been commenced 
under contracts with private builders, and President Grant in 
his messages of December 7, 1875, and December 5, 1876, 
earnestly recommended their completion ; but the Democratic 
House refused all appropriations and left these powerful ships 
unlaunched and cumbering the yards of the builders. 

In 1881, however, the Republicans again obtained control 
of the national House of Representatives. President Arthur 
in his message of December 6, 1881, said to Congress: I can¬ 
not too strongly urge upon you my conviction that every con¬ 
sideration of national safety, economy, and honor impera¬ 
tively demands a thorough rehabilitation of our navy.” On the 
5th of August, 1882, a bill became a law which may be consid¬ 
ered the beginning of a new era in American naval affairs, 
(i) There were on the Navy Register too many officers, and 


70 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


provision was made for their gradual diminution by the process 
of omitting to fill vacancies, until there should be a reduction of 
140 staff and 115 line officers, leaving the reduced number of 
1562 in all, and (2) it was enacted that thereafter no more 
graduates of the naval academy should be taken into the ser¬ 
vice than should be necessary to fill vacancies which might 
happen. (3) The appropriations for the cumbrous civil estab¬ 
lishment at the navy yards and stations were reduced, and the 
Secretary was directed, if the work could not be carried on for 
the amounts appropriated, to make no deficiency, but to sus¬ 
pend work at some of the yards. (4) It was deemed indis¬ 
pensable to the construction of a new steel navy that the lives 
of the old wooden ships should not be prolonged by per¬ 
petual repairs, and it was therefore enacted that no wooden 
ship should be repaired where the estimated cost either as to 
the hulls or engines would exceed 30 per cent of their estimated 
value. (5) The construction of two new modern naval cruisers 
was authorized, to be built of steel of a specified strength and 
ductility, and to be armed with rifled ordnance of the best and 
latest type. 

The Republican administration carried out with promptness 
the directions of this reformatory act of August 5, 1882. Its 
work has been concisely stated thus: 

A new naval policy was adopted prescribing a reduction 
in the number of officers, the elimination of drunkards, great 
strictness and impartiality in discipline, the discontinuance of 
extensive repairs of old wooden ships, the diminution of navy- 
yard expenses, and the beginning of the construction of a new 
navy of modern steel ships and guns according to the plans of 
a skillful Naval Advisory Board. The first of such vessels, the 
cruisers Chicago, Boston, and Atlanta, and the dispatch-boaR 
Dolphin, with their armaments, were designed in this country^ 
and built in American workshops.” 

“The Gun Foundry Board, consisting of army and navy 
officers, appointed under the act of the 3d of March, 1883,, 
visited Europe and made full reports advising large contracts 
for terms of years with American manufacturers to produce the 
steel necessary for heavy cannon, and recommending the estab- 


THE AMERICAN NAVY. 


I/I 

lishmeiit of one army and one navy gun-factory for the fabrica¬ 
tion of modern ordnance.” * 

In July, 1883, contracts were made for the construction of 
the above four ships with John Roach, who was the lowest 
bidder of the only three iron ship-builders of the United States, 
who all made proposals for the work. The construction pro¬ 
gressed rapidly, and on the 4th of March, 1885, when the 
Democratic administration of Mr. Cleveland came into power, 
the Dolphhi was completed and ready for her trial-trip, the 
Boston and Atlanta were nine tenths completed, and the 
Chicago was eight tenths completed. 

The first determination of the Democratic Secretary of the 
Navy, Mr. William C. Whitney, was to make political capital 
for his party by condemning as worthless the four new ships 
then so nearly finished. The Dolphin had her trial-trip 
March loth, and the Advisory Board, which had been created 
by direction of Congress to supervise the construction of the 
new ships, reported that she had been built in all respects in 
accordance with the contract; that although the horse-power 
on this trip was 183 less than the 2300 specified in the contract, 
the board was of opinion that the deficiency was not due to 
defective workmanship or materials, which was all the contrac¬ 
tor had guaranteed against, and that with better coal and a 
well-trained engineer force this difficulty would be overcome; 
that the mean speed was 15.16 knots per hour; and that the 
ship ought to be accepted. Under this report, in accordance 
with the contract, the builder was entitled to have the ship 
accepted; but Secretary Whitney on account of the petty de¬ 
ficiency of horse-power demanded two more trials, the last to 
be on the open ocean, and also appointed an additional board 
to scrutinize the vessel, composed of a captain just asking pro¬ 
motion and special orders to duty from the Secretary, and 
whose friends in the newspapers were praising him because he 
was a Democrat, another naval officer who had been relieved 
from duty by the previous Secretary for indecent conduct and 
was seeking revenge, and a civilian named Herman Winter, who 


^ Appleton’p Cy‘'. Am. Biography. Life of President Arthur, 




1/2 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


had been virtually in the employ of Secretary Whitney. Un¬ 
warranted and unjust as were Mr. Whitney’s exactions, Mr. 
Roach was compelled to submit to them. The new trial-trip 
took place May 28th, a six hours’ run was made in Long Island 
Sound, and the following telegram was sent: 

Astor House, New York City, May 28, 1885. 

“ Secretary of the Navy, Washmgton : 

“ Dolphin ran six consecutive hours to-day without mis¬ 
hap of any sort, averaging from 72 to 76 turns per minute. 
All conditions very favorable. Steam pressure, 84 to 89 
pounds. Average speed, 15^ knots; speed for two hours, 
15.9 per hour. Approximate mean collective horse-power, 
2240. As ship was aground on reef on Wednesday she ought 
to be docked before sea trial. 

‘‘G. E. Belknap, President of BoardP 

This telegram was carefully concealed for a whole year by 
Mr. Whitney, and never saw the light of day until May 25, 
1886, when he was compelled to answer a Senate resolution of 
March 6, 1886. 

On June ii, 1885, the sea trial took place outside of Sandy 
Hook, and its success was announced as follows: 

'‘New York, June ii, 1885. 

“ Secretary of the Navy, Washington : 

“ The Dolphin ran six consecutive hours at sea to-day, 
loaded to service trim, without drawback, making from 64 to 
72 revolutions of screw per minute; natural draught; no 
blowers used. Average approximate speed, I2f knots as 
shown by patent log. Approximate speed shown by bearings 
influenced by fair tide, 13.4 knots. All conditions favorable 
for trial, smooth sea not admitting of real test as to sea-going 
qualities of ship. Ship probably cannot be docked before 
early next week. 

“ Geo. E. Belknap, President of BoardP 

This telegram was indorsed by Mr. Whitney, “ Don’t give 
this out,” and was also kept secret from June il, 1885, to May 
25, 1886. But Secretary Whitney immediately, in a fit of 


THE AMERICAN NAVY. 173 

anger and disappointment, sent the following order to his ser¬ 
vile board to condemn the ship without further ceremony: 

“Navy Dep^ rtment, Washington, D. C, June 12, 1885. 

To Captain George E. Belknap, President of the Board, New 
York, N. Y.: 

“ Yesterday’s tri^jJ was, as you know, valueless. It occurred 
without my orders or knov/ledge. I find that the orders were 
give here in my absence under mistake. To test her strength 
when subjected to the strain of a heavy sea was the object of 
her trial. I do not doubt her ability to run 13 knots an hour 
in smooth waton I want to know whether she is structurally 
weak or not. Putting her inter a heavy sea at a speed not try¬ 
ing to her machinery was the condition you asked for. Has 
yesterday’s trial aided you in determining this matter? If not, 
require such tests to be had within the next week as you may 
deem necessary for the purpose. Have the board stay in New 
York untd this is settled. Do this unless you prefer to make 
your report based on yourpreseyit information. 

“W. C. Whitney, Secretary^ 

Thus coerced, the board hesitated no longer, but on June 15th 
made an untruthful condemnatory report. Mr. Whitney next 
submi'led the case to the Attorney-General for his legal 
opinion, asserting to him as a matter of fact that the ship had 
not reached a speed of 15 knots and had proved structurally 
we^k, both of which statements were false. Then came 
Attorney-General Garland’s astounding opinion, not only that 
the Dolphin did not comply with the contract, but that there 
Ivas no contract at all between Mr. Roach and the United 
States, and that all sums received by him had been paid with¬ 
out authority of law and might be recovered from him, and 
that the ship might be held for the money so decided to be 
due. This decision was made nominally on account of the ob¬ 
viously just clause in the contract, also contained in the con¬ 
tracts for the Boston, Atlanta, and Chicago, which provided that 
the contractor should not be responsible for any deficiency of 
horse-power unless caused by defective workmanship or ma¬ 
terials. Immediately after this absurd opinion was delivered, 


174 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Mr. Whitney telegraphed, July 14, 1885, to the commandant of 
the navy yard at New York, “Take masts, rigging, and all 
government property out of Dolphin^'" and gave the Attorney- 
General’s opinion to the public, while concealing, as before 
stated, the two telegrams above given, which proved the utter 
untruthfulness of the pretenses upon which the Democratic 
administration was laboring to condemn the ships merely be¬ 
cause Republicans had built them. In these devilish assaults 
Mr. Roach’s credit received a fatal blow. Upon the four ships 
there had been paid him $2,125,226.51. His assets in his two 
ship-yards were $4,631,478.23, and his debts $2,262,877.81. The 
public declaration by Secretary Whitney and Attorney-General 
Garland that Mr. Roach also owed $2,125,226.51 to the govern¬ 
ment completely crippled him, and he was compelled on July 
18th to make an assignment and close his works at Chester, Pa., 
and at New York City. Representative Goff in his speech in 
the House of Representatives, June 18, 1886, thus states the 
consequences: 

“ There were thrown from employment by Mr. Whitney’s 
blow at Mr. Roach, necessitated by his assignment, at the 
Morgan Iron Works, ten hundred and fifty-two men with a 
weekly pay-roll of $12,358.28; at the Chester Works, eleven 
hundred and thirty-seven men, with a weekly pay-roll of 
$11,802.02—$24,160.30. The usual force employed for years 
before had been, at the Morgan Works, eleven hundred and 
thirty-one men, with a weekly pay-roll of $14,034.46; at the 
Chester Works, thirteen hundred and thirty-one men, with a 
weekly pay-roll of $14,341.20—$28,375.66. During the five 
years from 1872 to 1876 Mr. Roach had consumed materials 
and paid out wages amounting to $14,890,147, of which the 
wages at the works were $7,269,734, and 90 per cent of the 
whole amount represents the labor of American workmen. 
Between 1876 and 1885 Mr. Roach had built sixty-six steamers 
at contract prices of $19,345,000, and done other work amount¬ 
ing to $3,147,000; or a total in nine years of $22,492,000, 
ninety-five per cent of which went for American labor.” 

The limits of this article do not allow a full statement of the 
cruel and atrocious treatment of Mr. Roach. He was 70 years 


THE AMERICAN NAVY. 


175 


of age; his health and spirits were broken; he gave up the 
struggle, and died on the loth day of January, 1887. His death 
lies at Mr. Whitney’s door. Nevertheless the latter continued 
to pursue with persistent unfairness all four of the ships. After 
Mr. Roach’s failure he was compelled to utterly disregard Mr. 
Garland’s opinion and take possession of them all. He sent 
the Dolphin to sea, hoping to show her to be weak in a gale of 
wind. But she. proved stanch and fleet. He attempted to 
condemn the Atlanta in a similar manner, but failed. He 
treated as passports for naval officers to his favor, assaults by 
them upon the ships. At last realizing that, after all, the ships 
however treated would be successful, he determined that they 
should not be finished so long as he could defer completion. 
He entered the Department March 7, 1885, with the ships, after 
one and two-thirds years from the dates of the contracts, nearly 
completed. More than three additional years have already 
elapsed and only the Dolphin and Atlanta are in commission! 
The Boston and Chicago have not yet had their standing rigging 
put up. This delay can proceed from but one motive—that 
the ships must be discredited and condemned at all hazards. 
As a matter of fact, the vessels have proved substantially fault¬ 
less in all respects; have more than met all reasonable expecta¬ 
tions ; and are highly creditable to the designers and builder 
.and to the government. Mr. Whitney’s attempt to place a 
taint upon them, and his cruel treatment of John Roach, whom 
he drove to the grave, have been such partisan and disgraceful 
acts as could only have proceeded from an unscrupulous and 
brutal Democrat. 

When Mr. Whitney came into office, besides having the 
arbitrary power to discredit the four ships built by Mr. Roach, 
and to ruin the builder, he found himself also invested with 
.authority by an act of March 3, 1885, to build the following 
.additional steel vessels: two cruisers of not exceeding 5000 
tons, to cost, exclusive of their guns, not more than $1,100,000 
each; one heavy gunboat at a cost of $520,000, and one light 
gunboat at a cost of $275,000. The history of the legislation 
giving this authority is instructive. The Senate Committee on 
Naval Affairs prior to February, 1884, had fully and carefully 


1/6 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


investigated the Roach ships and made a report approving the 
same, and the Senate on February 28th passed a bill by vote of 
38 to 13 (the latter all Democratic) for building additional 
ships. 

The House refused to pass this bill, and sent to the Senate 
the annual naval appropriation bill without any provision for 
additional ships, and for the monitors only $5000 for their 
“ care* and safe-keeping.” The Senate amended the bill by 
adding appropriations for the ships specified in the special bill 
which they had passed. The amendment was resisted by the 
House, and repeated conferences were held by committees of 
the two bodies, but all failed. 

As the result of these repeated disagreements no annual 
appropriation bill for the navy was passed. On the 7th of 
July, 1884, it became necessary for the Senate to agree to a 
temporary resolution for maintaining the navy for six months, 
and to submit to the insertion therein of a clause forbidding 
the use of any money on the monitors, and even repealing the 
authority then existing to build the engines of the Monadnock, 
the monitor under construction on the Pacific coast. 

This partisan action the Democratic House continued dur¬ 
ing the ensuing winter of 1884-1885 as to all appropriations 
which might be expended by a Republican administration. 
The House passed a resolution providing for the ordinary 
naval expenses for the remaining six months of the fiscal year. 
The Senate again added their provision for new ships, but the 
House refused to accept it and again passed the resolution 
making temporary provision for the six months, and the Sen¬ 
ate at last, after amending it so as to give it the form of a bill 
in detail, was obliged to agree to its passage without any pro¬ 
vision for the increase of the navy. 

The Republicans, however, continued without partisanship 
to maintain their advocacy of progress in the reconstruction of 
the navy. The House passed the regular naval appropriation 
bill for 1885-1886 with certain absurd provisions relative to a 
board of construction, to design various classes of vessels 
after which one vessel of each class was to be built from un¬ 
limited appropriations to be made by the bill for such purpose. 


THE AMERICAN NAVY. 


1/7 


The bill also appropriated $1,780,000 for the 6ooo-ton ship 
which had been authorized by the act of August 5, 1882, but 
which had not been constructed on account of the limit of cost 
imposed by the act; and there was also a provision for $400,000 
to complete the Neiv York, a large, old-fashioned wooden ship 
which had been for many years on the stocks in the New York 
navy yard; but nothing for the monitors. 

The Senate substituted for the preposterous House provi¬ 
sions sufficient appropriations for two cruisers, one heavy gun¬ 
boat, one light gunboat, and $2,000,000 for work on the moni¬ 
tors ; and after conferences between the two Houses the bill 
became a law March 3, 1885, the Senate giving up the two 
millions for the monitors, and the House consenting to provide 
for the two cruisers and the gunboats; which ships, when Mr. 
Whitney came into office, he found himself authorized to 
build. 

The spirit of the two parties thus exhibited was continued 
at subsequent sessions; the Republicans ready and eager to 
grant liberal appropriations for a new navy, even to a Demo¬ 
cratic Secretary like Mr. Whitney; the Democrats slow and re¬ 
luctant. Republican persistency was rewarded with a large 
measure of success so far as relates to appropriations. A bill 
was passed August 3, 1886, for the construction of two armored 
ships at a cost of not more than $2,500,000 each, one steel 
cruiser not to exceed in cost $1,500,000, one torpedo-boat to 
cost $100,000; also for completing the monitors at a cost not 
exceeding $3,178,046; and for the armament of all the various 
uncompleted vessels $1,000,000 was granted. 

Congress also authorized by the act of March 3, 1887, the 
construction of two additional gunboats at a cost of not more 
than $550,000 each, two steel cruisers not to exceed in cost 
$3,000,000: further authorized floating batteries or rams to 
cost $2,000,000; and gave towards the completion of the moni¬ 
tors and other ships $2,420,000, for the armament of all the 
ships $2,128,362, and in addition, in pursuance of the plans of 
the Gun Foundry Board, for armor and gun-steel $4,000,000. 

The total of all this power granted to the Cleveland ad¬ 
ministration, beginning with the two cruisers and two gunboats 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 


178 

authorized on the day it entered office, March 4, 1885, is to 
build and to arm twelve new vessels, and to finish four moni¬ 
tors, all at a cost of $28,421,408! At the end of three years 
and four months it has succeeded in launching one gunboat 
and one torpedo-boat! 

It is doubtful whether it will succeed in building and plac¬ 
ing in commission one ship during its term of four years. Dif¬ 
ficulties, delays, extensions of time, and changes of plan, such 
as were relentlessly condemned when happening in the case of 
the Roach ships, have multiplied upon the Navy Department 
without number. Discrediting American designers, it has ex¬ 
pended upwards of $50,000 abroad for plans of ships and en¬ 
gines prepared by English constructors and engineers, which 
are not unlikely to prove worthless. 

In its conduct of the Navy Department other than that 
of naval construction the administration is no less censurable. 
President Cleveland began with a denunciation of the organiza¬ 
tion of the Department as wholly vicious, called it merely a 
“shabby ornament of the government,” and the demand was 
made in 20 pages of the first departmental report for its com¬ 
plete and fundamental reorganization according to a ridiculous 
plan. No member of Congress ventured even to introduce a 
bill to carry out this wild scheme. A second and modified 
plan was drawn up scarcely less obnoxious, and a bill was accord¬ 
ingly introduced into the House of Representatives. This was 
assailed by speeches and a minority report by Representatives 
Goff and Boutelle; it fell still-born and has never since been 
heard of. 

Steady discipline in the navy has been abandoned, and 
laxity with spasmodic tyranny has taken its place. Drunken 
officers have been screened from punishment and placed on 
the retired list, or after conviction and sentence of dismissal 
have been allowed to resign. Politics have been made the 
basis of all employment in the navy yards, and the yards have 
been given over to the control of local political bosses. Sub¬ 
serviency with prostitution of faculties like that of Captains 
George E. Belknap, John G. Walker, Richard W. Meade, and 
Francis M. Bunce has been rewarded with place and power; 


THE AMERICAN NAVY. 179 

while manly independence like that of Chief Engineer Charles 
H. Loring has been punished by removal and ostracism. 

A political striker, formerly a restaurant-keeper,was first made 
chief clerk of an important bureau, and is now principal man¬ 
ager of the Department ; and upon him naval officers of rank, 
high as well as low, are compelled to dance attendance, while 
the proper functionary is absent or engrossed in multifarious 
occupations and diversions in no sense naval in their character,, 
by which the current business, of the Department is unreason¬ 
ably delayed and hindered. 

Much good work in naval designing and construction is 
doubtless under way, but it is carried forward by competent 
and faithful naval officers with whom the Department does 
not venture materially to interfere. It may not unfairly be 
said that whatever good things are being done by the Navy 
Department are not original with the present administration, 
but follow lines previously laid out, while whatever can be 
claimed as distinctly so original is either unwise or vicious^ 
Republicans may safely give and can easily maintain this chal¬ 
lenge. 

It is proper to allude to the attacks which have been made 
upon the Republican administration of the navy. Secretary 
Robeson has been constantly assailed, but an analysis of the 
complaints against him shows hardly more than this: that he 
u.sed appropriations made for the repairs of ships to completely 
rebuild such vessels, that he exchanged old iron for new iron 
under contracts made for building vessels, and that he paid one 
or two just and equitable claims without technical authority to 
do so. These charges, about which great clamor has been 
made, may be dismissed as not of great moment. Necessarily 
with naval expenditures of $731,709,705.53 made by the Re¬ 
publican party during its twenty-four years of continuous con¬ 
trol of the navy, including four years of sudden and stupendous 
civil war upon land and water, some mistakes would be made, 
some unwise expenditures would be incurred, some unfaithful¬ 
ness and dishonesty in officials would be developed. But it 
may be claimed that such cases have been comparatively few 


l 80 THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 

and unimportant, and that the general record is one showing 
Republican capacity, fidelity, and integrity of administration. 

The great burden of Democratic complaint has been that 
the Republican party has spent since the war $400,000,000 
and has no navy to show for it. Senator Vest three times 
thus unfairly reiterates the oharge: “$385,000,000 have been 
voted by the Congress of the United States to build a navy 
since 1866, and where is the navy?” “Where is the navy of the 
United States, and where is the money? Both are missing.” 
“ This condition is the result of maladministration and the reck¬ 
less waste of $385,000,000 appropriated by Congress since 1866 
for the support of the navy.” An examination of the gross 
sum thus mentioned shows that by far the larger part of the 
expenditures for the navy have been for the pay of officers 
and men and for what may be called the ordinary and indis¬ 
pensable running expenses of keeping up the establishment, 
and that the expenditures for the construction and repair of 
ships during the seventeen years of Republican control, after 
the war transactions closed, were about $60,000,000 and not 
$400,000,000. 

It would be equally good reasoning to charge the Demo¬ 
cratic party with incapacity and dishonesty because during the 
seventeen years before i860 it had expended $162,251,675.02 
on the navy and had little to show for it, or because it ex¬ 
pended during that time $49,174,787.99 on ships and had only 
a few worthless wooden craft and smooth-bore guns when the 
war began. During that period the pay of officers and men 
was $72,354,412.11, as from 1869 to 1884 such pay under Re¬ 
publican rule was $133,012,940.85. Is it a fair argument to 
ask what ships and guns there were to show for these immense 
sums ? 

That adequate results have not been obtained from the 
expenditure, for the construction and repair of vessels, of 
$60,000,000 since the war, may be true. The reason has been 
the continuance in existence of old wooden ships, upon which 
expensive repairs have been made under a vicious navy-yard 
system. But this system, as has been shown, was inherited 
from the Democratic party, and was reformed by the Repub- 


THE AMERICAN NAVY.” 


I8l 


lican Congress of 1882. The limitation then put upon the repairs 
of wooden ships, finally fixed at a percentage not to exceed 25 of 
the estimated cost of the whole ship, has been maintained by 
the Republican Senate against repeated efforts of the Demo¬ 
cratic House to break it down ; and it may safely be predicted 
that the navy yards as conducted by the present administra¬ 
tion will prove to be as expensive and as grossly partisan as 
they were under Democratic rule before the war. 

A just summary of the relations of the Republican party to 
the navy is to say (i) that it took from the Democratic party 
a navy of little value, with its vessels scattered by a Democratic 
Secretary to the four waters of the globe in order to aid the 
war against the Union; and quickly improvised a naval fleet 
of numbers and capacity sufficient under the control of officers 
and men winning famous naval victories to blockade our whole 
Southern coast and to perform fully its part in putting down 
the rebellion; (2) that when the war was ended and the Union 
saved it reduced the navy to a peace footing, adopted as soon 
as practicable a comprehensive plan for reconstructing the 
navy according to modern conditions, and began the work and 
gave to the country four fine steel ships as the beginning of a new 
fleet; and (3) that it delivered the Navy Department in good 
condition to the present Democratic administration, whose mis¬ 
management of naval affairs has been such as to make it im¬ 
portant to the national interests that Republican control 
should be restored. / 


OUR COAST DEFENSES. 

By Hon. Jos. R. Hawley, U. S. Senator from Connecticut. 

The United States is a nation of more than 60,000,000 of 
people, worth more than $40,000,000,000, and is defenseless 
against the weakest of the civilized powers of the earth. No 
enemy would ever undertake to invade our territory. We 
have a little regular army of 25,000 men, of whom perhaps 
15,000 could be spared to be collected in case of emergency. 
We have between 150,000 and 200,000 of organized militia 
or National Guard, who could be immediately assembled, 
tolerably well equipped and disciplined, and we have a reserve 
of small arms on hand to arm a few hundred thousand more. 
It is true that we have only twenty-five or thirty steel breech¬ 
loading, rifled field-pieces fit for a modern light battery, and 
a few obsolete light guns, but doubtless we could give a good 
account of ourselves in a short time against an enemy on land. 
Nobody, I say, will invade us with land forces. 

While we remain in our present condition the Congress of 
the United States will never declare war for any imaginable 
outrage. Against such we are compelled to negotiate 
and procrastinate. But it is possible to suppose that de¬ 
mands may be made upon us with uplifted hand which from 
very shame we should be obliged to deny. In what condition 
should we find ourselves? 

To quote from Captain Griffin’s excellent pamphlet: “A 
complete system of sea-coast defenses consists of three lines. 
The outer line is composed of war-ships; the second or skir¬ 
mish line, of torpedo-boats ; and the third or inner line, of land 
fortifications and channel obstructions, the latter usually fixed 
electrical torpedoes. Besides these there should be a reserve 
of war-ships, torpedo boats and launches, gunboats, floating 
batteries, etc.” 

And first, as to the outer line. The total of our navy is 98 

182 


OUR COAST DEFENSES. 


183 


vessels. Of these there are 12 tugs at navy yards, 12 old sail¬ 
ing vessels used as receiving and school-ships, and 6, classed un¬ 
serviceable, used as receiving ships, or condemned and waiting 
to be sold. This reduces the number to 68. Seven are classed 
as fourth-rate. Two of these are weak old propellers; one is 
the barkentine we are allowed by treaty to keep in the north¬ 
ern lakes ; one is a dispatch-boat; one is the ram Alarm ; one, 
a small four-gun cruiser building at Baltimore; and one, the 
experimental dynamite-gun vessel. 

Among the 43 third-rates are 5 old double-turret moni¬ 
tors that have been “ awaiting completion” since the war; 13 
are single-turret monitors with only four inches of plating, each 
carrying two old smooth-bore guns; and 25 unarmored vessels, 
ranging from goo to 1700 tons. Two have iron hulls, four 
steel, and the rest are wooden. The best are four steel vessels, 
three of which are building. They are cruisers and commerce- 
destroyers, and could not fight modern forts or armored ves¬ 
sels. 

Of second-rates there are 13. Five of these are steel, one 
of which is to be a battle-ship of 6300 tons, and three of which 
are protected or partially protected cruisers. Three of these 
five are still in the builder’s hands. The others are also 
wooden ships of honorable record—the Hartford^ Richmond, 
etc. The Trenton is the best—3900 tons and ten guns. The 
modern 8-inch steel gun would send a shot through two such 
vessels from stem to stern. 

Of the first-rates there are five steel vessels,—or will be, as 
four of them are protected cruisers still in the contractor’s 
hands. 

The vessels worth counting are those of the first, second, 
and third rates—61 in all. Ten are building. Eighteen are 
monitors, twelve of which are not worth fitting up, even for 
harbor defense. The remaining 33 are chiefly innocent old 
wooden propellers, armed with smooth-bores and a few Parrott 
rifles of the class that kill more friends than enemies. Only 
four of them are modern steel vessels, and they are of the 
lighter order. Of those building, but one aims to be a battle¬ 
ship, and she will rank far below the first-rates of other nations. 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


184 


The navy has the start of the land forces in reconstruction 
under modern ideas. Sixteen or seventeen vessels have been 
ordered by Congress since August 4, 1882, four of which have 
been finished, but only one is to be heavily armored. Never¬ 
theless, as the acts ordering ships likewise ordered armor and 
guns, the latter, when massed, made a quantity sufficient (con¬ 
sidering also the confident hope of further building) to justify a 
steel company in making the necessary costly plant and contract¬ 
ing for our first American heavy forging for armor and guns^ 
Previously 34 forged-steel built-up guns, ranging from 5-inch 
caliber to lo-inch, were nearly finished, the tubes of the heav¬ 
iest having been purchased in England. These were for the 
Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, and Dolphin. For the ships since 
authorized contracts have been made for 108 similar guns, of 
which 24 are of lO-inch caliber and 2 of 12-inch. Two or 
three years at least must elapse before the latter can be fin¬ 
ished. And at the rate at which we have been progressing for 
the last six years, it is not safe to prophesy when the United 
States would be ready to cope with even the third-rate navies 
of other nations. 

Excepting the four new cruisers, how are our ships armed ? 
The following is a correct table of the serviceable heavy guns- 
of the navy, afloat and on shore: 


Smooth-bores; 

20-inch caliber. 

15-inch caliber. 

ii-inch caliber. 

lo-inch caliber, shell. 

lo-inch caliber, shot. 

Q-inch caliber. 

8-inch caliber, 6500 pounds. 

32-pounders, 4500 pounds. 

Parrott muzzle-loading rifles: 

150-pounders... 

100 pounders. 

6o-pounders. 

30-pounders. 

20-pounders. 

Dahlgren muzzle-loading rifles, converted from ii inch to 8 inch... 


3 

76 

357 
12 
21 
I,on 

346 

378 

-2,204. 


28 

267 

75 

375 

245 

50 


■1,040. 

















OUR COAST DEFENSES. 


185 


Parrott breech-loading rifles: 

8o-pounders. 9 

6o-pounders. 27 

30 pounders. 5 

- 41 


3.285 

There is not a gun in this list that any other naval power 
would think of putting on shipboard. The Parrott rifles were 
a temporary resort. They are dangerous, and should be sold 
as old metal. Some of the smooth-bores in their day and time, 
before i860, put our then first-class ships among the best 
armed in the world. They, too, would be condemned to the 
waste-heap when compared with modern ordnance. 

To these must be added 10, 8, 6, and 5 inch breech-loading, 
built-up, forged-steel rifles of the latest type (already referred to) 
for the monitors and new cruisers, as follows: 


Steel breech-loading rifles: 

5- inch caliber. 2 

6- inch caliber. 2i 

8-inch caliber. 8 

lo-inch caliber... 3 


34 

The duty of the navy would be to watch for the enemy at 
sea, fight him there if possible, give notice of his position and 
probable intentions, and, in cases of necessity, to concentrate 
between him and our seaports. 

What of this can our existing navy do? We have no ships 
that can overtake any known enemy; none that could fight him 
if it did catch him ; none that could escape him in a race for 
home ; and no harbor defenses that could protect our ship when 
it got home. 

Technically, the second line of defense should be torpedo- 
boats. We have just bought the little yacht Stiletto to make 
a beginning with, and are contracting for another! 

As an essential part of the third or inner line of land forti¬ 
fications and channel obstructions, fixed electrical torpedoes 
are usually adopted. We have on hand a considerable number 











i86 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


of “ cases” (hollow wrought-iron globes), but we have no elec¬ 
trical apparatus, no long lines of cable, no protected shelters or 
torpedo galleries along the shores of our harbors whence the 
groups of fixed torpedoes may be operated. 

Of course we have no minor batteries established to cover 
the fields of the torpedoes or mines. All these things require 
time and money, quite contrary to the popular idea that tor¬ 
pedoes can be arranged in a few days. 

We come now to the main inner line of coast-defense forti¬ 
fications,—our forts and other permanent works. Between i8i6 
and 1826 a general system of coast fortifications was adopted. 
Under it we built some granite and brick forts ; some with walls 
eight feet thick, thinning to five feet around the embrasures, 
and good against guns of those days. The system was excellent, 
and for the numbers and wealth of the people they were costly. 
Not one of these fortifications, formerly a matter of just national 
pride, is anything more than a death-trap to-day when faced by 
the best modern weapons. Since 1875 not one penny has 
been appropriated for the construction of sea-coast defenses. 

General Duane, Chief of Engineers, writes me under date 
of May 19. 1888, as follows: 

“ The construction, preservation, and repair of all the per¬ 
manent works of the country, including collateral works, and 
the lands and buildings connected therewith, are in the charge 
of the Corps of Engineers. The Ordnance Department has the 
responsibility of the care and preservation of the armament 
only, such as the guns, carriages, and ammunition. 

“The act of February 10, 1875, gave the last appropriation 
for the construction of fortifications. With the exhaustion of 
that appropriation all constructive work ceased. 

“The acts of 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, and 1880 appropriated 
each year for the protection, preservation, and repair of fortifi¬ 
cations and other works of defense $100,000; the acts of 1881, 
1882, 1883, and 1884 gave annually $175,000, and the act of 
1885 $100,000. This last was the final appropriation, and was 
practically exhausted by the end of the fiscal year for which it 
was appropriated. The estimates of this office for the fiscal 
years ending June 30, 1887, 1888, and 1889 ^'^ere $175,000 each. 


OUR COAST DEFENSES. 


187 


“The failure to obtain any appropriation in 1886 for 1887 
necessitated the practical abandonment of all permanent and 
other defenses where there was no garrison or where an Ord¬ 
nance Sergeant was not stationed. Portable property was 
secured as well as possible, and the fort-keepers discharged, 
except where they were willing to act as watchmen without pay, 
in consideration of quarters rent free. Neglect of any struc¬ 
ture, however massive or well built, results in more or less rapid 
deterioration, and we find to-day, owing to a failure of the usual 
appropriations for the past two years, everything connected with 
our permanent defenses which is dependent upon annual ap¬ 
propriations for maintenance and repair going to ruin: slopes' 
overgrown with grass and weeds and gullied by the rain ; walks 
and roads ragged and untrimmed, and full of holes and gullies; 
ditches and drains filled up or fallen in, and pools of stagnant 
water on the parades and in the casemates; the sewers in bad 
order, with the consequent evils; mortar and cement falling out 
of the joints of the masonry for want of repointing; timber gun 
and ammunition platforms rotten or decayed, and permanent 
concrete or masonry platforms settling or out of plumb, thus dis¬ 
abling the proper service of the guns; casemates and quarters 
leaky, unhealthy, and uninhabitable ; revetment walls on water¬ 
fronts falling down, and waves making serious and rapid en¬ 
croachments on valuable ground, and thus impairing eligible sites 
for future works; and generally about the ungarrisoned forts an 
air and appearance of rack and ruin, and from the commanders 
of garrisoned works continual and urgent appeals to the En¬ 
gineers to keep their own works in proper repair for the com¬ 
fort of the garrison and the efficient use of the armament.” 

Now let us see what guns we have in our forts and arsenals: 


•Smooth-bores: 

20-inch caliber. 2 

15-inch caliber. 308 

lo-inch caliber. 998 

8-inch caliber. 210 

-1,518 

Parrott rifles: 

lo-inch caliber, 300-pounders. 38 

8-inch caliber, 200-pounders. 81 

6,4-inch caliber, loo-pounders. I73 

- 292 









i88 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Converted from lo-inch smooth-bores to 8-inch rifles. 2I0 

Smooth-bore mortars.. 45 


2,065 

I ought to add one 8-inch steel rifle obtained for experi¬ 
mental purposes, and one rifled cast-iron mortar hooped with 
steel. 

These are all muzzle-loaders. The nine classes require 33 
kinds of ammunition. They are totally inadequate to the de¬ 
fense of our larger harbors, but may be utilized where only 
vessels of light armor and draught can enter, and even there 
they should be supplemented by the modern breech-loading 
steel rifle, with its more rapid and efficient fire. 

The following memoranda sent me from the Ordnance 
Department in May, 1888, show the lamentable condition of 
that branch of the service. 

ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDA. 

“Owing to the failure of the Fortifications Bill, at both ses¬ 
sions of the Forty-ninth Congress, the operations of the Depart¬ 
ment in manufacturing and purchasing armament and supplies 
for fortifications have practically ceased. For the past two years 
no new contracts for guns, carriages, powders, projectiles, etc., 
have been made, excepting in a very small way and for experi¬ 
mental purposes, which were paid from the proceeds of sale of 
obsolete or unserviceable ordnance material. There is at pres¬ 
ent on hand a moderate supply of powder and projectiles for 
the 15-inch smooth-bore guns and the 8-inch converted rifles— 
the existing armament of our forts—and a small supply of 
powder for the field-service • but there is little powder for the 
siege-service, and very few shell, and not any shrapnel on hand 
for either siege or field service. 

“ The money available from proceeds of sales is now required 
for the manufacture of the field-guns and the experimental 
guns going on at the Watervliet Arsenal, so that the Depart¬ 
ment has no funds for the procurement of new supplies of pow¬ 
der and projectiles from that source. The alteration of exist¬ 
ing sea-coast carriages to adapt them to improved powders and 





OUR COAST DEFENSES. 


189 


guns, which was being carried on at the Watertown Arsenal, 
ceased two years ago by the failure of the Fortifications Bill, 
and the force of mechanics who had been trained to the work 
were discharged, and that industry —so to speak—destroyed, to 
the decided loss of the government. As a consequence, many 
of the 15-inch smooth-bore guns and 8-inch rifles cannot be 
mounted, and where these guns have been needed by the ar¬ 
tillery for drill and target practice the Department has been 
unable to supply the necessary carriages. The Department 
has no available funds for repairing carriages in service, for 
mounting and dismounting guns and removing them for ship¬ 
ment, or for working up new types. 

“ The failure of the Fortifications Bill also necessitated the 
discharge of the force at the proving-ground, which contained 
men of long experience in the handling of powders and ex¬ 
plosives, and in the special mechanical work required in con¬ 
nection with the testing of guns, etc. At present a detach¬ 
ment of enlisted men is employed at the proving-ground, but 
the absence of skilled mechanics is a great drawback to the 
proper execution of the work there. The working up of a suit¬ 
able steel for projectiles, improved fuses, etc., by actual firings 
cannot be carried on ; and the new experimental guns now 
under manufacture cannot be tested from lack of funds for 
these purposes. At a time of enforced idleness, when no large 
appropriations are available, the Department is even deprived 
of the necessary funds to work up approved types of ordnance 
material to have in readiness for reproduction when Congress 
shall make the necessary appropriations for manufacturing in 
quantity. The small permanent appropriation of $75,000 per 
annum, derived from the sales of obsolete or unserviceable 
ordnance material, is applied, as far as it goes, to the manufac¬ 
ture of experimental guns of large caliber and to small lots of 
field-guns for issue to the service, but it is wholly inadequate 
to the demands of the Department, and nothing is being done 
in that most important work, the construction and test of new 
types of carriages. A bill has been introduced in the House 
at the present session of Congress to cut off all permanent ap¬ 
propriations, and in the event of its becoming law the Depart- 


190 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


ment would be deprived of even these proceeds of sales, and, 
without other appropriations, the work of gun construction 
inaugurated through strenuous efforts at Watervliet Arsenal 
would be stopped, and the force of mechanics specially skilled 
in gun work, now employed at that arsenal, would be dis¬ 
charged. The injury resulting to the Department from such 
an occurrence would amount to a calamity. 

“ Under the appropriations for the Ordnance Department, 
embodied in the Army Bill, the following items have for the 
past two years been inadequate, viz.: 

“ 1st. For the purchase and manufacture of ordnance and 
ordnance stores- to fill requisitions of troops. The amount of 
$75,000 appropriated for this purpose is insufficient for the sup¬ 
ply of the army, and only such supplies as were indispensably 
necessary for the troops liable to be called into actual service 
have been procured. 

“2d. For mounting and dismounting guns and for the re¬ 
moval of same for shipment. 

“ 3d. For repairing ordnance stores in the hands of troops, 
and for issue at the arsenals and depots. For the past two years 
the appropriations for these purposes have been only $5000 per 
annum, in place of from $25,000 to $30,000 per annum during 
the nine preceding years. 

“4th. For the overhauling, cleaning, and preserving of new 
ordnance stores on hand at the arsenals. The appropriation 
for this purpose has been only $5000 for the past two years, 
while for the preceding fifteen years it was never less than 
$20,000 annually. The appropriations to be granted for these 
various items should correspond with the wants of the Depart¬ 
ment, as stated in the book of estimates, as its current opera¬ 
tions are ont he present basis of appropriations greatly crip¬ 
pled.” 

Now, let me give a table that will illustrate the vast ad¬ 
vances made in the character and power of heavy guns: 


OUK COAST DEFENSES, 


I 9 I 


u 

u 

< 

l-H 

o 

> 

< 

X 

z 

c 

o 


o 

w 

c 

H 



c /5 

;d 

(A 

O 

3 

cr 

rt 

X 


3 

<u 


>> 

XI 

•3 

4 ; 

u 

cd 

a 

a; 

u 

Oh 


c 

3 

o 


o 

u 

3 

cd 

:z; 

3 

cd 

c 

o 

w 

cd 

Z 


5 

Vi 


0 

iOVO PO 0 

W fO 

\n 

ON • 

Cl 00 00 

CO 0 

CO 

ON 

00 00 

0 00 On 0 

CO M 

'd* 

OJ • 

On ro A 

lood 

d 

c> 


fO CO M w 

N « 

W 


W « Cl 

Cl d 

Cl 

H 


i*»N m 


*3 

iJ 

6 

U 


c; 

u 




c 

u 


oi 

K 


: 

• • 

J . 

« • 

CQ : 

^ • 
■H 

a? 


“s I 




Eg 

O w 

V tc>i 

O O . 

(1.2: =&-33 

3 3 ti 

O ?^0 o 


ij 

pi 


iJ 

cd 


.-d 22 ^ 

^=1 


C 

ct; 




V 

Vj 


6 

u CO, 

V V ^ 

4 -» 4-1 C^ 

V ^ ^ 

.§ Mu 

4 -» ^ C 

c C CTJ 

U 

t^ W 

cn cn'O 


oi 

iJ 

cd 

u 

V 

4-> 

0^ 

p 


c 

u 

o 


Oi 

hd 

cd 

u 

V 

4-1 

4 ; 

a 

*3 

C 

4 ; 

o 

m 

• 

o 

m 


u 

a> 

4 -» 

V 

E 


. •' jm. ^ 

' a o Q. 

^a-Q a 

S3 3 
Q u. u 

K 

> 


oi 
-4 
cd 

u 
V 
w 

a> 

a 

-j 

C 
«u 
c 

V 00 
U H 

in cn 

blc bJD 

c c 
o p 

u U 

4 .* w 

(T (A 

s s 

u u 


Enerfry 
per ton 
weight 
of gun. 

• 

to 

<:> 

**«*» 

5: 

CO On COOO m O' m 
ro^vO t^M Oco 0 
in 10 -d- mvo cnoo »n 

M 

00 • 

c-» • 

• 

• 

• 

# 

• 

• 

t^vo 00 

00 00 O' 

CO -Nj- 

M On 

0 *-• 

''i* m 

d VO 00 On 

VO CO 0 H 0 
mvo VO mvo 

Muzzle 

energy. 

• 

1 

mo m 0 onO m 
in 0 Cl M m COOO 
m O' O' "^00 tN. 0 

i^MONOCidNCO 
ininioco^^ H M M 

d 

d 

M 

CO 

ft 

00 • 

VO • 

« : 

♦ 

d • 

• 

# 

' ♦ 

M d m 

VO 0 0 

0 m O' 

vfT CO 

CO d 

S8 

0 ON 

0 M 

''i- m 

0 m d d m 

H mvo d 

00 CO m m 
^ ^ 

VO m d M 

M M 

Initial | 

velocity i 

per 

second. 

• 

><1 

CNinoooNOOO 
c^rod incvO d O 
OcoOO'-NdinON 

cTHcfdcTddfH 

mco d 
ro mvo CO 

0 On O' M 

cT M cT cT 

Cv ro Cv 

M 0 m 

0 r^oo 

Cl M M 

0 m 

0 CO 

c^oo 

#« 9 * 

H H 

0 0 m m m 

0 0 

M M 0 O' O' 

d d d M M 

Weight 
of pro¬ 
jectile. 


2,000 

2,000 

1,800 

1,250 

320 

380 

380 

403 

m 0 NO CO 
mco d - 

M ON d 

#• ,» f 

MM M 

1 

VO 

■ - _ d 

’ ON 

d m CO 

CO 0 

VO c^ ^ 

M M M 

§1 
d d 

0 Q 0 0 0 
m 0 m 0 VO 
m m d M 

Weight 

of 

charge. 

1 . 

1 

S 

ddOlO 000 ^s 

coc^OdcoocooN 

00 OnnO d d CO h 

VO 

m 

d 

VO ON 

CO CO 

m m 

M CO m 

VO •'1- CO 

M d 

m 

m 

m 0 m 0 0 
tN. m d m CO 

d d M 

• 








3 


moo M M M VO On 

O' 

0 CO 

^ ^ d 

d 00 

m CO d d d 

3 


cod cocococo’d'd 

d 

CO CO 

CO d CO 

d d 

CO CO CO CO CO 

bJO 








Vt-I 

0 

Q 























tt 


00 c^co onvo d m 

00 

C^ CO 


tN. 

M 

c 



• 

• • 

• • 

• • 




VO O'l-' ’'4 *rot'vH in 


d VO 

^ M d 

d O' 

0 ^ VO ro 

4 .) 

iJ 


'^co'^cod d cod 

CO 

CO CO 

CO CO 

CO CO 

CO d d M H 


• 



0 



CO O'OO 


5* 

COOOCOmoOOnO 

H 

d VO 

O' M 00 

Q 9 

0 VO d ’'j- d 

• ^ CJj 


OOMVOdHMd 

c^ 

m CO 

M tN. Tf 

0 0 

CO d M 

4 ; 

^ '3 

K 

M M M 



M 

M M 


> 0 








u 


m m 

VO 

00 00 

m m 

d 


c; 


d 10 d d d 0 

m 

CO ro 



m 

X 



• 

• ft 

ft ft 

ft 



V) 

t^vo ro ON O' On ON 


CO CO 

m m d 

r> 

0 0 00 VO m 



M M M M 

M 

H M 

H’ M H 

M M 

M M 

U 








4; 


cod •^•^in-^'^co 


H m 

H CO 

0 d 

m m m m m 



oocooococoooooco 

CO 

00 00 

00 CO 00 

CO 00 

00 00 00 00 00 

3 


cooocooocooooooo 

CO 

00 00 

00 00 CO 

00 00 

00 00 00 00 00 

Q 



M 

M H 

M M M 

M H 

M M H M H 


pi 

cd 

4 ; 

o 

c 

cd 

c 

*3 

u 

o 

n 

> 

cd 

.. 2 

2 
'Kk 




\i 


3 

cd 

4 ; 

u 

3 

CQ 


000 

QPO 


















































192 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTV. 


I place here directly in contrast an analogous statement of 
the fighting value of the guns in our forts and arsenals: 

Smooth-bore U. S. Ordnanxe. 


Caliber. 

Weight 
of gun. 

Weight 

of 

charge. 

Weight 
of projec¬ 
tile. 

Initial 

velocity. 

Muzzle 

energy. 

Energy 
per ton 
of gun. 


20-inch. ... 

15-inch. 

io-inc(i. 

8-inch. 

Tons. 

51 

20 

7 

4 

Lbs. 

250 

130 

35 

20 

Lbs. 

1,080 

455 

128 

68 

Ft.-secs. 

1,560 

1,700 

1,702 

1,770 

Ft.-tons. 
18,219 
9,116 

2,570 

1,477 

Ft.-tons. 
357 

455 

367 

369 

Penetration is not 
given. Racking 
effect is what is 
sought. 


S-iNCH Converted Rifles. 


Caliber. 

Weight 
of gun. 

Weight 

of 

charge. 

Weight 
of projec 
tile. 

Initial 

velocity. 

Muzzle 

energy. 

Energy 
per ton 
of gun. 

Penetration in 
wrought-iron at 
1000 yards. 

8-in . 

Tons. 

7 

Lbs. 

35 

Lbs. 

180 

Ft.-secs. 

1,415 

Ft.-tons. 
2,514 

Ft.-tons. 

359 

8-inch. 




Our most powerful gun on land weighs 51 tons, caliber 20 
inches, carries a round shot of 1080 pounds, muzzle-energy of 
18.219 foot-tons. (A “foot-ton” represents the force required 
to raise one ton one foot.) 

The heaviest English gun has a caliber of 17 inches, weighs 
108 tons, throws a shot of 2000 pounds, having a muzzle-energy 
of 57>555 pounds. 

Our 8 inch smooth-bore, weighing 4 tons, shot 68 pounds, 
has a muzzle-energy of 14.77 tons. Our 6-inch steel rifle, weight 
of gun 4.9 tons, throwing a projectile of 100 pounds, has a 
muzzle-energy of 2542 pounds—almost precisely that of our 
cast-iron smooth-bore of lo-inch caliber weighing 7 tons. 

The round shot loses energy much more rapidly than the 
elongated steel projectile of equal weight. 

THE BRITISH NAVY. 

A few figures concerning the British navy will be instruc¬ 
tive. The total number of vessels on the official list is 395 ; 
the total effective, 325. Of these, 275 are completed and 50 
are building. 







































OUR COAST DEFENSES. 


193 


There are 65 heavily armored vessels. Among these are 15 
battle-ships of the first class, with 14 to '24 inches of armor, 
and batteries of breech-loaders of 6 to 16.25 inch caliber, and 
batteries of muzzle-loaders of 12.5 to 16 inch caliber. There 
are 33 battle-ships of the second class, with 4 to 14 inches of 
armor batteries of 6 to 9.2 inch breech-loaders and 7 to 12.5 inch 
muzzle-loaders. There are 9 armored cruisers, with 7 to 10 
inches of armor, and batteries of 6 to 9.2 inch breech-loaders. 
There are 8 coast-defense vessels with 4 to 10 inches of armor, 
and batteries of 9 to 12 inch muzzle-loaders. Of protected ves¬ 
sels, so-called, there are three classes. There are 6 cruisers of 
the first class, from 4000 to 9000 tons displacement, having com¬ 
pletely protected decks covered with armor 2 to 6 inches thick, 
and batteries of 6 to 9.2 inch breech-loaders.' There are 5 of 
the second-class- cruisers of 40(X) tons displacement, with decks 
completely protected, domes over the engines 2 to 4 inches 
thick, and batteries of 6-inch breech-loaders. Besides this class 
there are 22 partially protected vessels, and 37 unprotected swift 
cruisers of three classes, carrying guns of from 5 to 9 inch cali¬ 
ber, some muzzle-loaders and some breech-loaders. There are 
133 gun vessels, with batteries of 4 and 5 inch breech-loaders 
and 64-pounder muzzle-loaders. 

We have one torpedo-boat building; the English have 143 
effective torpedo-boats. 

There are at least 80 or 90 vessels in the British list, either 
•one of which is more than a match for the best in our navy. 

In the seventeen years ending last December the British 
issued to their navy 475 breech-loading rifles, made of forged 
built-up steel, ranging from 8o-pounders to guns of i6^inch cali¬ 
ber, weighing 110 tons, and throwing a projectile of hardened steel 
weighing 1800 pounds, with a muzzle-energy of 51,000 foot-tons; 
furthermore, in the same time they issued 1332 muzzle-loading 
rifles ranging from 64-pounders to 16-inch guns weighing 80 
tons—a total of 1807 steel guns; during which time our navy 
has received about 30 steel guns, the largest being two of 
lO-inch caliber. 

There are 9 British vessels waiting for 78 heavy guns, among 
which are 10 of 9.2-inch caliber, and 16 of 12 and 13.5-inch cali- 


194 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


ber. We have made no mention of the very large number of 
Hotchkiss, Nordenfeldt, and Gatling guns which these ships 
carry, whose projectiles range from an ounce bullet of lead to 
a six-pound bolt of chilled steel. 

While the British navy is the largest and most powerful in 
the world in the number of its heavily-armored vessels and 
the aggregate of its great guns, it fairly illustrates the effec¬ 
tive character of all European navies. Even Brazil, Chili, 
Japan, and China have more modern ships and effective guns 
than the United States. Chili could lay San Francisco under 
contribution. 


OUR NORTHERN FRONTIER. 

Now we propose to consider some of the exposed points 
on our boundaries, and the facility with which they can be 
'reached by a hostile force. A report of the House Military 
Committee as long ago as 1862 said: 

“The United States and Great Britain are equally pro¬ 
hibited by treaty stipulations from building or keeping afloat 
a fleet of war vessels upon the lakes. At the same time, on 
the shores of these lakes the United States have many wealthy 
cities and towns, and upon their waters an immense commerce. 
These are unprotected by any defenses worthy of special notice, 
but are as open to incursion as was Mexico when invaded by 
Cortez. A small fleet of light-draught, heavily-armed armored 
gunboats could in one month, despite of any opposition that 
could be made by extemporized batteries, pass up the St. 
Lawrence into the lakes and shell every town and city from 
Ogdensburg to Chicago. At one blow it could sweep our 
commerce from that entire chain of waters. To be able to 
strike a blow so effective Great Britain constructed a canal 
around the Falls of Niagara. By this single stroke the entire 
chain of lakes was opened to all British light-draught ocean 
vessels. Perceiving our ability to erect works upon the St. 
Lawrence that might command its channel, and thus neutralize 
all they had done. Great Britain dug a canal from the foot of 
Lake Ontario, on a line parallel to the river, but beyond the 


















i 





1 







* 




y 



) 


' 'Vi 

[• 4 .. ; - 


.V’V' •-' 


^ f 
\ 

■ \ 


' A •, • • V < . . • 

I* <*•' ,/ * /* •■ ,1^ 





I 




w 

•i : 


j- 


K 


« 


V . *. ' 




•'. iK< 


I if 


»•* 


■ I 

'V. , 

r'- 

r 



\ 


I t 


f 


* 


f 




) : 
. .>iv. ‘ 

* , t > 




‘I » 




4^V 


r . 


- a 

l> 






t 


% 




\ 


I 




I > 


» > 


4 


« 


ry 




* r 


\ , 



OUR COAST DEFENSES, 


195 


reach of American guns, to a point on the St. Lawrence below, 
beyond American jurisdiction, thus securing a channel to and 
from the lakes out of our reach.” 

The canals referred to have a navigable depth of 14 feet 
from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie, and of 9 feet to Ontario 
from below. The latter canal is intended to have a depth 
of 14 feet. 

Official reports show that the British navy contains 102 
vessels available for service in the lakes, while we are barred 
from keeping there more than the one innocent creature used 
as a sort of revenue police-boat. The British, under similar 
obligation, have canals by which they can send a great fleet of 
vessels there. Fifty-three of the list draw less than 12 feet 
and over 9; 8 draw over 7 feet, and 41 less than 7 feet. Two 
of the vessels are armored. Of the 41 vessels drawing less 
than 7 feet, 24 carry each a lo-inch muzzle-loading rifle. The 
others each carry either three or two 64-pounder muzzle-load¬ 
ing rifles. So this little mosquito fleet has more vessels upon 
the active list and carries more effective armament than ouf 
whole active navy. 

ON THE WEST. 

On our western coast is Victoria or Esquimault on Van¬ 
couver’s Island. In 1885 it was decided to defend it, and the 
armament, as just stated in Parliament, is to consist of six 
rifles, 6 to 9 inches caliber, eighteen other pieces of various 
values, and six rifled machine guns. 

The naval station at Victoria is 75 hours from San Fran¬ 
cisco, calculated upon a speed of 12 knots ; 10 hours from the 
bottom of Puget Sound, and 14 hours from the mouth of 
the Columbia River. Four important forts are to be con¬ 
structed there. Coal is abundant. This point is of great 
importance to the British, as it is the western terminus of 
the Transcontinental Railway. 

ON THE EAST. 

On the east lies Halifax, the best fortified and the most 
important of the British naval stations bordering on the 


196 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


United States. Its forts are continually improving, It is 
claimed that the harbor is impregnable against attack from 
sea. There are extensive docks, one of which, nearly finished, 
will be the largest in the world, and the large machine-shops 
are capable of undertaking any repairs. An abundant sup¬ 
ply of coal is kept. Four torpedo-boats are there. 

Bermuda is also strongly fortified. Its harbor is difficult 
of entrance. Its forts contain at least fifteen i i-inch cannon, 
besides extensive batteries of smaller caliber. Submarine 
defenses have been fully developed ; four first-class torpedo- 
boats are about to be permanently placed there. A large 
supply of coal is always there. 

The strong strategic position of Quebec is well known. 
It is almost impregnable. 

At Bridgetown, Barbadoes, are forts mounting heavy guns 
and garrisoning 760 men. 

In view of the completion of the Panama Canal, Port 
Castries, Santa Lucia, is now being put in condition to serve 
as a central coaling station and a rendezvous for British 
vessels in West India waters. Large guns and other material 
are being transported there ; the harbor is being dredged, and 
coal-sheds are in process of erection. 

In view of the development of the Panama Canal, it is pro¬ 
posed by the French to establish an additional naval and coal¬ 
ing station on the island of Guadaloupe. 

There are Spanish stations of importance. Havana is the 
chief. Its harbor, by form and position rendered easy of de¬ 
fense, is surrounded by forts mounting many guns, some old 
and useless, but among them are three 22-ton Krupp and a 
number of 2CX)-pounder Parrott rifles. 

There are a small arsenal and some government machine- 
shops ; a system of submarine defenses has been developed; 
torpedoes are on hand for planting. San Juan, Porto Rico, 
has fortifications out of order, but easily put in condition for 
defense. The same may be said of the Bay of Guantanamo 
about fifty miles east of Santiago de Cuba. 


OUR COAST DEFENSES. 


197 


THE SHORT DISTANCES TO EUROPE, 

There is food for reflection in the following table of times and 
distances. Under the name of several of our chief ports is given 
its distance in sea miles from the foreign ports named in the 
first column. In the columns of hours are given the times it 
would take to reach our chief Atlantic ports from the several 
foreign stations, at an assumed squadron speed of 12 knots an 
hour. 


Table of Distances. 



Boston. 

New York. 

Capes 
Charles 
and Henry. 

Charles¬ 

ton. 

New 

Orleans. 

Sea 1 
miles 

Hours 

Sea 

miles 

Hours 

Sea 

miles 

Hours 

Sea 

miles 

Hours 

Sea 

miles 

Hours 

Halifax. 

420 

35 

540 

45 

720 

60 

1,070 

89 

1,125 

177 

Bermuda. 

720 

60 

680 

57 

600 

50 

780 

65 

1,540 

129 

Bridgetown, Barbadoes.... 

1,900 

158 

1,850 

154 

1,700 

142 

1,600 

133 

1,975 

165 

Kingston. 

1,600 

133 

1,400 

117 

1,150 

96 

1,000 

83 

1,280 

107 

Port Castries. 

1,850 

154 

1,800 

150 

1,620 

135 

1,530 

128 

1,875 

156 

Quebec. 

1,250 

104 

1,400 

117 

1,600 

133 

1,650 

154 

2,950 

246 

Fort de France. 

1,800 

150 

1,750 

146 

1,550 

129 

1,500 

125 

1,850 

154 

Miguelon and St. Pierre.... 

720 

60 

900 

75 

1,100 

92 

1,400 

117 

2,400 

200 

Guadaloupe. 

1,700 

142 

1,650 

138 

1,450 

121 

1,440 

129 

1,800 

150 

Havana. 

1,450 

121 

1,400 

100 

1,000 

83 

600 

50 

600 

50 

Porto Rico (San Juan). 

1,550 

130 

1,400 

117 

1,200 

100 

1,100 

92 

1,500 

ib 

Guantanamo. 

1,450 

121 

1,340 

112 

1,100 

92 

860 

72 

1,100 

92 


It should be added that the strategically very important 
harbor of Portland, Maine, is 325 miles, or 27 hours, from 
Halifax; and 720 miles, or 60 hours, from Bermuda. 

It will be seen that the harbor of Boston can be reached 
from the great naval stations at Halifax and Bermuda in 35 
and 60 hours respectively; New York may be reached in 45 
and 57 hours. Charleston and New Orleans are within 50 
hours of Havana, etc., etc. 

Captain Griffin has calculated and compiled with great care 
and after consulting collectors and receivers of taxes, boards of 
assessment, etc., etc., an interesting table of destructible prop¬ 
erty within the reach of an enterprising enemy in eight of our 
wealthy seaports. I give it in full. Of course the local esti¬ 
mates of land valuations differ considerably for different cities. 
In all items the full value of the land is deducted. 





























Value of Destructible Property Exposed to an 


198 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


O <U 

3 ♦-* t; 
^ y 5 
> P cx, 
^ W o 

c/) w 
n ^ ^ 

O 'o 

H 



CO 

0 

0 

cn 

d 

cn 

M 


0 

cn 

rt 

in 

0 

0 

0 

• 1 “ 

lO 


0 


M 

cn 



cn 

0 

vO 

0 

M 


cn 


M 

vC 

d 

in 

0* 

o' 

M 

cn 


cn 

in 



M 

r*> 


r>. 

0 


0 

0 

CO 

0 

M 

0^ 

0 


M 


0 

Cl 

cn 


T 

d 


cn 

O' 

HH 

cn 

HH 

0“ 

0 k 

in 

cn 

in 

c> 

cf' 

vC 

o" 


cn 


0 

d 

in 

H-t 

0 

CO 

hN 


CO 

d 





CO 

M 

0 


d 


M 

in 





M 



















4 ^ 


^ ^c 3 

5 ^ 

O- OJ *7: > o. 

e X g o o 
§2 o a 

X c W ^ 

W 3 


00 


CO 

cn 

10 


in 

a 

in 

in 

(xT 

CO 


a; 

cJ 

.1 

C/) 

w 


O 

o 

M 

r-N 

in 


O 

cn 

in 

O 

o 


cn 


Ci 

cf 

O 


Vi; 


CO 

M 

co" 

CO 

cn 

o 


CO 

'C 

in 

cn 


O 

cn 


O 

cn 

M 

in 

00 " 

O 


M 

cn 

o 

cT 

in 


O 

o 

o 

cn 

cn 

r-. 

in 


> 

Z, 

w 


b£ 

0 

C^J 

• 

• 

0 

in 

CO 

•i- 

1 ^ 

0 

0 

0 


0 


• 

0 


0 


in 


1-4 

0 

C <u tj ^ 

0 

in 

• 

0 

in 

M 

0 

r-. 

in 

HH 

0 

rt 3 




p\ 



0k 


#s 


«s 

a' 2 'S > 

0 

in 


CO 

0 

Cv 

0 


CO 

in 


. ^ 

1 “ 


in 



cn 

d 

Cl 

0 

CO 


in 


• 

CO 

0S 

Cl 


0 

in 

0K 

CO 

vC 

^ G -r y 

s> *-1 V 5 

d" 

0 

• 

d 

cf 


vO 

d 



cn 


cn 

• 


o^ 

M 

d 

O' 


d 

d 

d 




CO 

0 

• 

• 

0 


0 

in 

d 

0 

)r u 



0 

• 

0 


d 

d 

0 

0 

0 ^ 

• 

in 

cn 

# 

0 

cn 

0 

0 

0 


G- 0 

c 

0 k 


♦ 


*. 





t ■ ^ ^ G 3 

0 

M 

i> 

♦ 

d 

c^ 


h-t 


CO 

0 »r'^ h 


H -4 



in 

d 

in 

CO 

0 

0 

g: u 'o 

G • 

0 G 

^ 0 

ts c 

u 

0 

in 

• 

0 

CO 

r-. 

in 

0 

in 

0 

a 

cd 

d- 

in 

M 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

in 

rt 

1 ^ 

M 

cn 

o' 

1 -^ 


0" 

■rr 


8 

C 

o' 

o 

o 


CO 

in 

O 

o' 

cn 


Cl 

in 



in 

0 

• 

0 

M 

M 

0 


in 

0 

in 

rt t; G 

d 

CO 

• 

0 

cn 

1-4 


0 


0 


a uH • 

r>» 

Cl 

♦ 


r*- 

d 

Cl 

n* 


0 

0 

oj > ^3 

v- c 

in 

d 

4 

• 

cn 


in 

"F 

in 

0" 

0 

d 

tt d 

0 

in 

• 


0 

0 

CO 

CO 

0 

0 

cn 

.4, c- 

in 

d 

• 

0 

in 

CO 

0 ^ 


0^ 

0^ 

CO 

.2 5 ^ 5 0 

in 

#v 

in 

# 

0 

0 

0 s 

CO 

CO 

d" 

o' 



rt 5 3 

M 

0 

4 

M 


cn 

Cv 

CO 

r>. 

CO 


p> cn 73 



4 

4 




HH 

cn 






in 

0 

Q 

0 

cn 

C 

0 

cn 

Ov 

cn 

0 

Q 

0 

n* 

in 

in 

CO 

O' 

r*^ 

0 

0 

0 

cn 

CO 

CO 

0 

0 

CO 

cd 

o' 

cn 

co" 


cn 

d* 

)-H 

0 

n- 

0 


0 

O' 

in 


in 

CO 

0 

0 

in 

d 


CO 

0 

0 

cf 

d* 

0 


CO 

d- 


cn 

d 

cn 

CO 

O' 

d 

cn 

0 

M 

CO 

n* 

4 ^ 

0 



cn 


cn 

in 

d 





M 






<u 

^ (/i c • 
C2 oj § ^ 
G c /3 u 
O G u ^ 

rt cy ^ o 
G -a ^ 

ctj C ^ 

2 00 CTJ 
^ 00 


O 

8 

O 

O 

o 

o' 

vO 


O' 

in 

in 

CO 


Cl 


>> 

4-1 

U 


0 

O' 

CO 

cn 

O' 

d 

cn 

0 

cn 

0 

O' 

hH 

cn 

0 

O' 

O' 

d 

0 


hH 

O' 

in 

CO 

CO 

in 

0 

d 


0 

M 

cn 

0 

0 



0k 


PS 


4s 

PS 

4s 

4S 


cn 

d 

d 

m 

0 

0 

0 


d 

0 

cn 

cn 

0 

CO 


0 

d 

0 

n- 

cn 

M 

cn 


cn 



d 

M 

m 

CO 

cn 

d 

d 


• 

4 

4 

4 

0 

U) 

JO 

• 

• 

w 

U 

4 

u 

0 

w 

u 

4 

c 

c 

u 

c 

0 

w 

c/5 

*G 

0 

s 

0 

cx 


<u 

c/5 

S 

0 

0 

0 

0 

ct3 

(U 

<u 

lx 

0 

u 

Oh 

pq 

u 

iz; 


CQ 


.5 

c- 

"O 

Ic 

Oh 


O 

u 

O 




c /5 

C 

d 

JJ 

IZ 

o 

& 

a; 

:2: 


o 

o 

(/3 

’G 

c 

cj 

Ui 

c 

a 

c /5 


O 

vO 

O^ 

CO 

h -4 

cn 


c/5 

15 

w 

o 

H 


■^Including Chelsea and Brookline; all exposed to a fleet in Boston Harbor. 















































OUR COAST DEFENSES. 


199 


The very able Board of Fortifications, which made its ex¬ 
ceedingly valuable report early in 1886, declared that the ports 
along our sea-coast invite naval attack, and the richest ports are 
the most defenseless. 

The Chief Engineer of the Army in his last report says 
that we have nothing to oppose to the entrance of hostile fleets 
into our chief ports except a few incomplete mines stored at 
four of them. I add that said mines are not planted, and 
could not be operated if they were, until cover should be made 
and electrical apparatus furnished for the operators. 

It appears that in the eight harbors named there is a grand 
total of four and a half billion dollars’ worth of destructible prop¬ 
erty without any adequate security against the vicissitudes of 
war. New York City pays over a million and a half annually for 
its fire department. The losses by fire in insured buildings have 
only amounted to sixty-six and a half millions in twenty-eight 
years, which the Board of Underwriters thinks is 90 per cent 
of the total loss. New York pays over six millions a year for 
insurance against fire, or eighteen millions every three years. 
The elaborate reports of our engineering and ordnance officers 
estimate that seventeen and a half millions would complete 
the entire defense of the Narrows and East River, and that 
the works once completed could be maintained by merely 
nominal annual appropriations. 

Official reports show that New York has destructible prop¬ 
erty valued at $1,855,303,043. Similar statements can be made 
concerning the other cities named. It would make little differ¬ 
ence to us whether Great Britain or France or Spain gave us 
five days or forty days’ notice of the opening of war. The 
fleets of either nation sailing from their nearest stations could 
place themselves in easy command of our richest cities. 

A ransom of a hundred millions levied upon New York 
would not be an extraordinary tax. Germany levied a thou¬ 
sand millions upon France. 

What, then, shall be done ? When the war closed we had 
a navy that compared well with the navies of the world ; but we 
had ourselves given them lessons which resulted in a complete 
revolution in all the arts of fighting at sea. As our ships of the 


200 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


war time faded away we did not replace them. In the mean 
time other nations built better still. We continued to renew 
our old store of cast-iron guns, and experimented in a half¬ 
hearted way for a series of years. Divine Providence favored 
us. We had no quarrel. We sought no quarrel; no one sought 
to quarrel with us. 

Our navy is down, as we have shown, to a mere shadow— 
useless in a day of trouble. Nothing is done on any new sys¬ 
tem of forts and fortifications in general ; for thirteen years 
we have not spent a dollar to continue or to reconstruct the 
old works. As they are they will be practically useless in a 
war of the kind that will come if any comes. But they can 
be made available to some extent by the ingenuity of our 
engineers. 

Nor are our cast-iron guns and antiquated cast-iron or 
compound rifles altogether useless. Into such harbors as ad¬ 
mit vessels of not more than twelve, fifteen, or eighteen feet 
no enemy’s vessel is likely to come that could not be seri¬ 
ously injured by the old guns aforesaid. It is at the ten or 
fifteen largest ports that fortifications of the newest kind 
and of the best gun known should be first placed. 

We have classed the navy as the outer line of defense— 
that which ought to be able to engage the enemy, or, if we 
are too economical for that, at least to check his advance, 
and to report his probable aim. 

The second line is of torpedo-boats, of which we should 
have several at each principal port. Next in order are fixed 
torpedoes (or “ mines”) anchored below the surface in the 
channels, and connected with and governed by electrical bat¬ 
teries in safe cover on shore. Batteries of the lighter orders of 
guns, even down to Hotchkiss three and six pounders, or Gat¬ 
lings, shoiijd be established where they could command the 
fields of torpedoes and protect them. 

In further defense of harbors come the self-moving tor¬ 
pedoes of two classes, the independent travelers and those 
whose movements can be directed from shore. Among harbor 
defenses are floating batteries and our surviving monitors. 
Also the new pneumatic dynamite gun which throws cylinders 


OUR COAST DEFENSES. 


201 


containing dynamite charges up to 500 pounds one or two 
miles. Its powers are limited, but valuable. 

The functions of all these, save the latter, have been duly 
established and calculated for by those whose duty it is to 
study our defense. 

We come, then, to the shore. There we shall find in future 
such use made as may be possible of our old defenses by cov¬ 
ering them with sand or plating them with armor, and by sink¬ 
ing in pits behind them guns mounted upon disappearing 
carriages. We shall find also revolving turrets, in vital posi¬ 
tions, containing 16-inch guns of more than a hundred tons 
weight, throwing 1800-pbund chilled-steel shot, and with other 
turrets covering 12-inch guns. The old batteries assembled 
great congregations of the old cast-iron cannon to meet the 74- 
gun ships of old style. Our new batteries will scatter their ter¬ 
rible rifle-cannon of 16 and 12 and 10 and 8 inch caliber along 
the defended channels, either in the turrets, or under cover of 
steel or cast-iron in rounded turtle-back forms. 

The perfected iron-clad of modern days can carry but few 
of the modern heavy guns, and each is to be contended with 
accordingly. Among the auxiliaries, however, must be the 
lighter 6-inch rifle with its relatively small projectile of a hun¬ 
dred pounds of steel. Auxiliary and still lower in the scale 
come Hotchkiss revolving cannon, throwing six-pound, three- 
pound, and two-pound steel shot. 

In ably setting forth this and much more, the Fortifications 
Board, the ablest committee that ever considered this subject 
in this country, only adopted and extended the preceding re¬ 
ports of Admiral Simpson’s Gun Foundry Board and Colonel 
Getty’s Armament Board. 

The Senate Committee on Ordnance and War-ships, ap¬ 
pointed in July, 1884, reporting in February, 1886, after an ex¬ 
amination of the navy yards and prominent steel manufactories 
of this country and the leading establishments of Great 
Britain, and a review of the reports above named, came to cer¬ 
tain conclusions which to-day represent the opinion of the War 
and Navy Departments and the great steel-makers and ship¬ 
builders, and the skilled ordnance officers and engineers of the 


202 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


United States. I cannot now state the case more concisely than 
by quoting the following from the report I assisted in making: 

“ (4) As a partial check upon private builders, and as a re¬ 
source in case of necessity, some ships should be built in navy 
yards, the parts to be furnished by private foundries. Ships in 
general should be built by private contract, and private yards 
are capable of doing the work. The uncertain nature of re¬ 
pairs is such that some government yards should be kept ready 
to make them. 

“ (5) Armor plate and engines should be obtained wholly 
from private manufacturers. 

(6) The costly experiments of twenty-five years have 
reached a stage which justifies certain conclusions. Guns 
should be made of open-hearth steel, forged, breech-loading, 
chambered, of calibers ranging from 5 to 16 inches, of lengths 
ranging from 30 to 35 calibers. Armor and projectiles should 
be made of forged steel. The hydraulic forging press produces 
better results than the steam-hammer, costs much less, and 
should be used for government work. Ships should be con¬ 
structed of steel, but certain minor classes may be composite, 
of steel and wood. 

“ (7) The manufacture of guns suitable for ships and coast 
defense should be divided between private foundries and gov¬ 
ernment shops ; the former providing the forged and tempered 
parts, and the latter finishing those parts and assembling them. 

“ (8) The government should establish two factories for ma¬ 
chine-finishing and assembling guns. The weight of opinion 
among army and navy experts and prominent manufacturers 
of heavy work in steel decidedly indicates the Washington 
navy yard and the Watervliet Arsenal as the best sites for such 
factories. When the determination to contract for heavy guns 
shall have been reached, the localities for finishing them can 
easily be determined. 

“(9) All needed private capital is ready for cheerful co¬ 
operation with the government in whatever it may require. 

“(10) Proposals for armor and guns should require such 
quantities and extend over such a series of years as to justify 
private persons in securing the best plant. Payments should be 


OUR COAST DEFENSES. 


203 


made only for completed work, and only the guaranteed bids 
of persons having capital and experience should be considered.” 

Nothing is lacking but the action of Congress. 

As to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the committee’s conclusions, it 
may be said that the navy is proceeding precisely upon that line. 
The navy yards are building some ships the heavier parts of 
which are furnished forged by private concerns. Other citizens 
are building entire ships, and engines are obtained wholly from 
private manufacturers. The navy has also contracted, on the 
plan above suggested, with the Bethlehem Steel Works of 
Pennsylvania for several thousand tons of armor and rough 
parts of heavy guns. These parts are to be finished in the 
Washington navy yard, where some admirable work has already 
been done. 

The beginnings of the navy are feeble compared with our 
necessities. The army has been able to do next to nothing. 
It ought to be authorized to day to contract for ten or fifteen 
thousand tons of the forgings of heavy steel for the parts of 
steel rifles ranging from 6 to 8, 10, 12, and 16 inches caliber. 
Not directly authorized thereto, but under the general instruc¬ 
tion, with a certain very limited appropriation to keep up its 
stores, the army has been gathering tools at Watervliet for a 
finishing-shop. A large appropriation is needed to put that 
shop in perfect order. In two or three years we could be re¬ 
ceiving from contractors abundantly capable, abundantly in¬ 
genious, and with ample capital, forgings of the latest styles of 
manufacture—rough pieces, the results of liquid compression 
and hydraulic forging and of a quality unsurpassed, and these 
could be rapidly put together in steel guns, the best in the 
world. Nothing indeed is lacking but the will of Congress. 

The neglect is astounding. I repeat that for thirteen years 
not a dollar has been given to reconstruct or renew our coast 
fortifications. Since 1885 not a dollar has been given even for 
their preservation—nothing to paint the old gun-carriages and 
guns ; nothing to reset and point the tumbling brick ; not a dime 
even to cut the grass from the slopes. The frosts and rains are 
reducing the once superior old forts to ruins. There is little 
powder, and there are few projectiles ; the skilled mechanics at 


204 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


the proving-grounds, men familiar with powders, explosives, and 
fine work in cannon, have been discharged. The four or five 
experimental guns under manufacture cannot be tested. In 
short, for thirteen years in one case and three in the other the 
United States Congress has absolutely refused to give a dollar 
to renew or maintain its defenses. There is nothing more 
extraordinary in the military history of the country. 

It is said that in case of an emergency the genius and the 
valor of our people will extemporize defenses. But it would 
take the best of our mechanics three years to extemporize steel 
guns of the first class. The highest authorities deem it wise 
to justify some private concern in expending a million dollars 
for a plant to furnish the rough parts of guns, and to put nearly 
an equal sum in government shops for finishing the same. The 
government can thus best invite competition. Few firms would 
be willing to establish a plant of $2,000,000 to build complete 
guns with the experience of John Roach before them. They 
themselves named the conditions above quoted in paragraphs 
5 and 6. 

It is idle to say that we are adequate to any instant emer¬ 
gency. Modern defenses are the work of years; but they will 
last for generations at little annual cost. A lo-inch rifle throw¬ 
ing a 500-pound shot eleven or twelve miles can never be less 
than formidable.* 

We are pointed to the experience of the Rebellion for an 
example of the rapid development of our resources. But the 
forces of the Union were rallied against a people who had no 
navy whatever, and no gun-shops worth naming. Yet it took 
four years to subdue the Rebellion. The episode of the Moni¬ 
tor was brilliant, but it took a hundred days to build that 
wonder. As against modern European navies our richest ports 
would within that period be five times over compelled to pay 
ransom. 

We are told to wait for new developments. We have been 
waiting twenty years, until our navy consists of little more 

* The 8o-ton rifle’s projectile will penetrate 25 feet of granite and concrete 
masonry, or 32 feet of the best Portland cement concrete, or 50 or 60 feet of 
sand.— Capt. Griffin. 




OUR COAST DEFENSES. 


205 


than brave and skillful men, until our guns are all antiquated 
and our forts crumbling. The hundreds of millions it has cost 
Europe to experiment have been spent equally for our benefit, 
and by one general consent all Europe has arrived at certain 
conclusions that it would be the extremity of folly to reject. 
There may be better and cheaper clothing next year, but we 
must wear something to-day. There may be faster ships and 
railway trains five years hence, but we must travel to-day. 
There will be better and cheaper roofing some time, but we can 
not live in the rain to wait for it. 

It will cost us something to build even a good defensive 
navy and good coast defenses. True. It was the bold and 
frank estimate of the Fortifications Board that a proper system 
of coast defense, though not a complete one, would cost $126,- 
000,000. But that would be a smaller per capita cost than the 
system that the country was professing to perfect between 1826 
and i860. This would be $2.52 per head; that was $3.35, on 
the bases of the censuses of 1880 and 1884. 

It is said that we intend no war, and nobody wants war with 
us. True ; we are not a warlike but we are a military people. 
The surest guarantee of peace is the ability to defend ourselves. 
It is not only true that we cannot fight, but we cannot make 
manly argument. We cannot “talkback.” In the face of the 
most grievous wrongs, our diplomatists must protest, and tem¬ 
porize, and explain, and procrastinate, and compromise. 

We shut our eyes to history and declare that we shall never 
have war. From blue , skies the awful War of the Rebellion 
thundered. Some day there may be a demand made upon us 
that for very shame—“ for the glory of mankind to distinguish 
him from the brute creation”—we must abruptly and finally 
deny. Then the valor of ten millions of brave citizens capable 
of making the best army in the world will be as idle as a sum¬ 
mer wind, and a day of humiliation may come that will be a 
stinging shame for a thousand years. Then if any are found 
who can be called responsible for our stupidities, they will call 
on the mountains to fall upon them. Then there will be build¬ 
ing of guns and the launching of ships. Then there will be blaz¬ 
ing hatred, nursed until the inevitable day of ample satisfaction ; 
fierce and devilish rage, infinitely more demoralizing than a 


2 c 6 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


brave struggle of a ready people resulting in an honorable 
defeat. 

In 1882, when the Republicans had, for the only two years 
in the last twelve, the control of the House of Representa¬ 
tives, the first ships of what may be a new navy were ordered, 
and public sentiment amply justifies the still cramped and 
meager appropriations made annually for that purpose. Since 
1882 and 1883 the conclusions already described had been 
reached by manufacturers and ordnance officers. Yet the 
Democratic House of Representatives stubbornly refuses to 
take the indispensable steps to national defense. In the last 
Congress the Republican Senate sent two simple propositions 
to the Democratic House of Representatives, one to invite 
bids for furnishing 10,000 tons of rough parts for steel guns 
for the army, another authorizing a similar step in behalf of 
the navy. The House paid no attention to either bill. 

In the spring of 1886 the Senate took the meager House 
Fortification Bill and amended it with a perfectly reasonable 
proposition to build guns for land defense, and insisted upon 
its amendment. The contest ran through both sessions of the 
Forty-ninth Congress and resulted in the failure of any fortifi¬ 
cation bill whatever. The Democratic House sent no practical 
substitute. Whatever propositions came from the House 
varied widely from those adopted by impartial experts outside ; 
and if they meant anything more than delay, the purpose was. 
not visible. At this moment of writing, July 2, a fortification 
bill has not been even reported to the House. The Repub¬ 
lican party wisely and patriotically demands, in its national 
platform, due regard to this great national necessity. 

The leading and controlling forces of the present Democ¬ 
racy spent twet\ty-four years in criticism of all the work of the 
Federal Government. They have not yet learned to take up 
that work. They have not yet become a true party of the- 
Nation. 

We are 6^,000,000, and we have countless wealth; yet we 
stand like Samson, blind and shorn, among the nations— 
blind to our destiny aud our magnificent duties. In a great 
day of calamity we could not even have Samson’s satisfaction 
of crushing our enemies in a common destruction. 


THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE. 

By Hon. Nelson Dingley, Jr., M. C. from Maine. 

The enterprising character of the early settlers of the United 
States, their location on or near the sea-coast, the opportunities 
for sea-fishing, the abundance and cheapness of excellent tim¬ 
ber for ship-building, and the absence of manufacturing indus¬ 
tries and other openings outside of the farm for ambitious 
young men, early turned the attention of our people to mari¬ 
time pursuits. 

This maritime spirit was fostered by the founders of our 
government, incidentally as a source of material prosperity, but 
mainly to promote commercial independence and secure 
national safety. The first Congress which assembled after the 
adoption of the Constitution, on recommendation of Washing¬ 
ton, and with the approval of Madison and Jefferson, enacted 
that only American-built vessels should be entitled to an Amer¬ 
ican register or enrollment and license ; that the coastwise trade 
should be restricted to American vessels; and that foreign ves¬ 
sels participating in the business of carrying our exports and 
imports should be subject to higher charges, and their cargoes 
to higher duties, than the vessels of the United States and their 
cargoes. 

Under the influence of this protection of American vessels 
in both the foreign and coastwise trade our merchant marine 
rapidly increased, until the embargo and war of 1812 restricted 
its growth. In 1789, the year in which the Federal Govern- 
ernment went into operation under the Constitution, the total 
tonnage of the merchant marine of the United States was only 
201,562 tons, of which 123,893 tons were in the foreign trade 
and only 77,669 tons in the coastwise trade. In 1807 the total 
tonnage of our merchant marine had increased to 1,268,548 
tons, of which 848,307 tons were in the foreign trade and 
410,241 tons in the coastwise trade. 

207 


208 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Between 1807 and 1840 our shipping in the foreign trade 
had alternate periods of decline and recovery without perma¬ 
nent growth, our tonnage in that trade in the latter year 
reaching only 899,765, or but a few tons more than in 1807. 
But during this period our tonnage in the coastwise trade rose 
to 1,285,154 tons. Up to 1840 sailing vessels almost exclu¬ 
sively were employed in deep-sea trade; and even in our coast¬ 
wise trade steam tonnage to the extent of only 202,330 tons 
appeared in the returns for that year'. 

In the fifteen years between 1840 and 1855, culminating in 
the latter year, the merchant marine of the United States em¬ 
ployed in the foreign trade had its highest prosperity—the ton¬ 
nage rising each year and in 1855 reaching 2,535,136 tons, of 
which all but 115,045 tons were sail. The same year our coast¬ 
wise tonnage was 2,676,865 tons, of which 770,285 tons were 
steam. 

While the tonnage of our vessels in the foreign trade re¬ 
mained very nearly stationary in the six years between 1855 
and 1861, yet relatively, in consequence of the growth of our 
exports and imports, it was slowly retrograding—showing that 
the period of decline had been entered upon. In 1855 7 Si 
per cent of our foreign carrying trade was done by American 
vessels. In 1861 this percentage had fallen to 69^ per cent—a 
decline of 9 per cent, or per cent per annum. 

The real magnitude of this decline is most clearly shown 
by the decadence in ship-building during this period. In 1854 
there were 507 ships, barks, and brigs built in the United States 
for the foreign trade. In 1856 there were 409 built. In 1857 
there were 309 built; in 1858 only 122 ; and in 1859 i U* 
At no period since has the decline in ship-building for the 
foreign trade been so great year by year as in the six years be¬ 
tween 1855 and 1861. 

In 1861 our tonnage in the foreign trade was 2,642,628 tons, 
of which only 102,608 tons were steam-vessels. In the coastwise 
trade we had 877,204 tons of steam-vessels and 2,020,981 tons 
of sail—a total in our home trade of 2,897,185 tons. 

During the four years of civil war the operations of the 
Confederate cruisers resulted, directly by capture and indirectly 


THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE. 


209 


by sale to avoid capture, in a loss of more than one third of our 
shipping in the foreign trade, our tonnage in that trade having 
been but 1,602,583 tons on the 30th day of June, 1865, only 
98,008 tons of which were steam. As our foreign commerce, i.e., 
our exports and imports, were increasing, our relative loss was 
much greater than these figures indicate—the percentage carried 
in American vessels having been only 28 per cent in 1865, 
against 66^ per cent in 1861 and per cent in 1855. 

This decline of our foreign carrying trade has continued 
slowly since the close of the civil war, the official statistics 
showing that only 14.2 per cent of our exports and imports 
were carried in American vessels in the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1887—a decline of about three fourths of one per cent per 
annum. Our registered tonnage, some of which is in the 
■coasting trade or the trade between Atlantic and Pacific ports, 
was 1,015,563 tons June 30, 1887, of which only 173,571 tons 
were steam-vessels. Our coastwise tonnage of that date was 
3,090,282 tons, of which 1,542,717 tons were steam-vessels and 
1,447,565 tons sailing-vessels. 

Computing by the accepted rule that one ton of steam is 
equal in carrying power to three tons of sail, our coastwise 
tonnage in 1869, after it had recovered from the disturbing 
effect of the civil war, was the equivalent of 4,300,892 tons of 
sail. Notwithstanding the unexampled development of com¬ 
peting railroads, on June 30, 1887, we had in the coastwise 
trade an equivalent of 6,075,716 tons of sail—an increase of 
nearly 50 per cent in twenty years. It is worthy of note also 
that our coastwise tonnage is more than three times as large as 
the home fleet of Great Britain, and more than five times as 
large as that of any other nation. 

The decline of our merchant marine in the foreign trade is 
a humiliating fact which has justly attracted wide-spread atten¬ 
tion within a few years, and has caused an earnest discussion of 
the causes, and the remedies which should be applied to recover 
our position in the deep-sea carrying trade. 

This topic is rarely alluded to by a free-trader in or out of 
Congress without the assertion that the decline is the direct 
result of the national protective policy of the country adopted 


210 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


by the Republican party in i86i and maintained since that 
period, and the additional declaration that up to i86i, when 
the revenue-tariff policy of the Democratic party was over¬ 
thrown, our merchant marine was experiencing great and 
increasing prosperity. 

The conclusive reply to this free-trade assumption is that 
the decline of our foreign carrying trade, as the official figures 
already given show, did not commence with the adoption of 
the protective tariff in i86i, but in 1855, when the Democratic 
revenue-tariff policy was in force; and that in the six years 
between 1855 and 1861—while the Democratic tariff policy is 
alleged to have been doing so beneficent work for our shipping 
interests—our foreign carrying trade and our ship-building for 
the foreign trade declined more rapidly than in any similar 
period since the war. It is noticeable, too, that the growth of 
our foreign carrying trade was even greater under the protective 
tariff of 1842 than under the revenue tariff of 1846, although it 
does not follow that the existence of the one tariff policy or the 
other had any more to do with the prosperity of our shipping 
in this trade in either period than did the revenue tariffs of 
1846 and 1857 with its prosperity up to 1855 and its decline 
between 1855 and 1861. 

It is not unfrequently asserted that if the revenue tariff of 
1846 had not been supplanted by the protective tariff of 1861 
and subsequent amendments, we should have been able to build 
iron steamships as cheaply as Great Britain. 

This assertion has no foundation in fact, for the reason that 
the present tariff is as favorable as the tariff of 1846 for the 
construction of vessels for the foreign trade. The tariff of 1846 
imposed duties on all ship-building materials and supplies. 
Under the present tariff all lumber, timber, hemp, manilla, iron 
and steel rods, bars, spikes, nails, bolts, copper and composition 
metals, and wire rope for the construction, equipment, and repair, 
and all supplies of American vessels for the foreign trade are 
admitted free of duty. The difference in cost of materials for 
an iron steamship in this country and England was as great 
before the war as now, so that if we had then been called upon 


THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE. 


211 


to build such vessels we should have had the same difficulty as. 
at present. 

It is frequently affirmed by free-trade writers and speakers 
that our foreign commerce, i.e., our exports and imports which 
furnish cargoes for vessels, has been diminished by the protec¬ 
tive policy, and that in this way our foreign carrying trade has. 
been crippled. 

The unanswerable reply to this free-trade assumption is 
that our foreign commerce never increased so rapidly as it 
has since the war under the protective policy. In 1865, when 
the war closed, the value of our exports and imports was 
$404,774,883. In 1881 their value was $1,545,041,974—a 
growth of nearly 300 per cent in 16 years, and a growth far 
greater than that of the foreign commerce of the United King¬ 
dom. But the increase of our exports and imports in the 16 
years of revenue-tariff policy between 1846 and 1861, inclusive,, 
was only 70 per cent. 

If our shipping in the foreign trade had grown in proportion 
to the increase of the cargoes provided by our foreign com¬ 
merce, we should have had a most magnificent fleet of vessels 
engaged in transporting our exports and imports. The diffi¬ 
culty has not been in a want of cargoes, but in the fact that 
foreign rather than American vessels have taken these cargoes^, 
simply because our vessels could not successfully compete with 
foreign vessels, which have all been admitted to participate in 
the carrying of our exports and imports on equal terms with 
our own vessels since January i, 1850, when the United States, 
entered into reciprocal maritime arrangements with Great 
Britain. 

This brings out the fact that while on the one hand our 
thoroughly protected merchant marine in the coastwise trade 
has prospered because it has not been brought into competition 
with foreign vessels, on the other hand our shipping in the 
foreign trade, which has been brought into free and open com¬ 
petition with foreign vessels since 1850, has been gradually 
driven from the ocean. In other words, protection—protection 
to the extent of prohibition of foreign competition—has saved 
our shipping in the coastwise trade, and made it the most. 


212 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


magnificent home fleet in the world; while free trade in the 
business of carrying our exports and imports has well-nigh 
ruined every American ship-master and ship-owner in this 
trade. 

A more complete demonstration of the Avisdom, aye, the 
necessity of protecting all our industries against free competi¬ 
tion of similar foreign industries employing cheaper labor 
could not be had. Free trade as a theory seems very plausible 
on paper; free trade in its practical results may be seen by any¬ 
one who looks for the American merchant marine in the foreign 
carrying trade, which has been struggling against foreign com¬ 
petition on free-trade principles for over thirty years. 

It is argued by free-traders that the mortifying result of the 
application of free-trade principles to our foreign carrying trade 
would have been averted if we had also applied these principles 
to the purchase of ships, and admitted foreign-built vessels 
to American registry free of duty. Indeed, so confident are 
our free-trade friends of the sufficiency of this remedy, that the 
sole measure which they have presented in Congress to revive 
American shipping since they came into control of the House 
of Representatives in 1875 has been a free-ship bill. 

This argument proceeds on the assumption that the princi¬ 
pal reason American vessels are not able to successfully com¬ 
pete with British vessels is because the construction of iron 
ships cost more than it does on the Clyde or Tyne, in 
consequence of our higher wages of labor; and hence 
that this disadvantage may be overcome by allowing 
the free importation and registry of foreign-built vessels. 
In other words, the free-trade plan is to sacrifice the ship¬ 
building industry in this country—at least as far as building 
vessels for the foreign trade, now or in the future, is concerned— 
and have our vessels built on the Clyde or Tyne in the expec¬ 
tation that when we have given our ship-owners foreign-built 
ships at foreign prices, they will be able to run these vessels in 
open competition with foreign vessels. 

But if we cannot build our vessels as cheaply as our British 
competitors because our ship-carpenters receive higher wages 
than the same class of mechanics on the Clyde, how is it ex- 


THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE. 


213 


pected that we can run even a foreign-built vessel as cheaply 
as our British competitors, when every man from master to sea¬ 
man, engineer, and coal-heaver required to sail an American 
vessel receives on the average 37 per cent more wages and 27 
per cent better fare than similar employes on British vessels ? 

That these are the serious facts with which we have to deal 
is shown by a report of U. S. Consul Russell at Liverpool, 
made to the State Department last November, and published in 
the Consular Reports for February, 1888, from which I copy 
the following summary: 

“ British vessels in domestic ports can procure crews for 
from 37 to 32 per cent lower than those paid on American 
vessels, which is a serious item in the disbursement account. 
Then, again, the cost of maintenance on American ships is 
about 40 cents per day per man against the English 29 cents, 
or a difference of 27 per cent in favor of the latter. When it 
is considered that provisions, such as beef, pork, and flour, 
which are the principal articles of food consumed, can be 
obtained in the United States, if anything, at a lower price 
than in England, it seems remarkable that the crews of our 
vessels should cost 27 per cent more per man for maintenance; 
yet such appears to be the case. It is an acknowledged fact that 
the living on board our vessels is superior to that of other 
nations, and it is generally asserted that larger quantities of 
food are supplied to the crew, the scale of provision laid down 
by Congress being rarely, if ever, resorted to.” 

It is the almost universal testimony of practical men—ship 
owners, masters, and agents—who have been inquired of in this 
matter, that the difference in first cost between an American 
and British built vessel is now only ten to fifteen per cent, 
which is a small matter in an iron vessel that will last thirty or 
forty years (for we can build wooden vessels as cheaply as they 
can be built elsewhere), and that the real difficulty experienced in 
running American vessels in free competition with foreign ves¬ 
sels grows out of the higher wages paid officers, seamen, en¬ 
gineers, stokers, etc., and the better fare granted them. 

The objections to the free-ship policy, therefore, are, first, 
that it is an inadequate remedy, and would not revive Ameri- 


'214 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


can shipping in the foreign trade ; second, that it would have 
a tendency to weaken the maritime spirit which is so essential 
to maintain maritime enterprises, and which has its inspiration 
in the idea that the ship on which one sails represents the in¬ 
dustry, the genius, and the sovereignty of one’s own country; 
third, that no nation can be commercially independent, or even 
maintain its prestige on the ocean, unless it builds its own ves¬ 
sels; and fourth (even if all other objections were removed, and 
even if it were clear that free ships would accomplish all that is 
claimed by free-traders), that it would be suicide for the United 
States to deliberately adopt the policy of having its ships built 
.abroad, for the reason, as so well stated by Jefferson, that ship¬ 
yards and skilled workmen experienced in constructing vessels 
;are as essential as forts to the safety and protection of the 
:nation. 

In considering the question as to what remedies should be 
applied to revive the American merchant marine in the for¬ 
eign trade, it is important to have a clear understanding of the 
causes which have brought about its gradual decline, beginning 
,about 1855. 

These causes may be grouped under five heads: 

First: The revolution in marine architecture from wood to 
iron and in vessel propulsion from sails to steam, by which the 
United States lost the advantage that she possessed in her cheap 
.and abundant timber so long as wooden sailing-vessels con¬ 
trolled the ocean carrying trade, and Great Britain gained a 
.greater advantage through her abundance of iron and coal in 
juxtaposition near the seashore and her cheap labor to build 
and run iron steamships. The cost of officering and manning 
.a steamship is so much more than that of a sailing-vessel, that the 
difference of expense in running an American and a British 
steamer has become the most serious obstacle to be overcome 
•in competing with British and other foreign vessels, since the 
revolution from sail to steam. 

Second: The adoption in 1850 of the policy of admitting 
British as well as other foreign vessels to participate in the 
carrying of our exports and imports on equal terms with our 
;.own vessels, which gave free opportunity for Great Britain to 


THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE. 21$ 

use the advantage gained by the revolution from wood to iron 
and sails to steam. 

Third: The steady and systematic encouragement and aid 
given by Great Britain to British steamship lines and ship-yards 
by means of postal subsidies, construction grants, and govern¬ 
ment contracts, while the United States, with two or three 
temporary exceptions, has refused to extend any aid to Amer¬ 
ican ship-yards or steamship lines. Between 1840 and 1887 the 
government of Great Britain expended about $250,000,000 in 
postal subsidies to aid in the establishment and maintenance of 
British steamship lines, in addition to giving liberal contracts 
for building government vessels to encourage the establishment 
and enlargement of private ship-yards. The suggestion has 
been made that within a few years she has been less liberal in 
her grants in this direction than formerly. That is true, but 
this has come about from the fact that prior subsidies had 
accomplished their purpose. But let British lines be seriously 
endangered by the competition of lines established by other 
nations, and the British Government would at once come for¬ 
ward with all necessary assistance. 

Fourth: The civil war, which let loose the Alabamas that 
drove one third of our shipping in the foreign trade from the 
ocean, and gave Great Britain an opportunity to get far ahead 
in the race for ocean supremacy by building up great iron ship¬ 
yards and establishing her lines of steamships to all parts of 
the world while our hands were tied. 

Fifth: The unexampled internal development of the United 
States in the two decades succeeding the close of the war, 
which engrossed the energies and capital of our people in ex¬ 
tending our manufacturing industries, building railroads, and 
developing the new West, and which yielded profits that in¬ 
vited investments, while no profits could be reaped on the 
ocean in free competition with foreign ships. The investment 
in railroad construction in the United States in excess of a 
similar investment in the United Kingdom in a single year 
(1882) would have built two hundred of the finest ocean steam¬ 
ships afloat. 

The situation, then, may be briefly stated as follows: 


2i6 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 


The American merchant marine in the foreign trade has 
been well-nigh driven from the ocean because the change from 
wooden sailing vessels to iron and steel steamships in ocean 
transportation has enabled foreign vessels employing cheaper 
labor, and to a large extent aided by their governments, to run 
at a less cost than American vessels engaged in the only busi¬ 
ness in this country open to foreign competition on free-trade 
principles—the only business which has experienced what free¬ 
traders describe as “ the salutary neglect of the government.” 

If we could return to the conditions which existed when 
wooden sailing-vessels, requiring small crews, controlled the 
ocean carrying trade, we could hold our own. But we cannot. 
Even in the face of the revolution from wood to iron and sails to 
steam, and in the face of European subsidies, our vessels would, 
hold their own if we could return to the protective legislation 
which imposed higher charges on foreign vessels and higher 
duties on their cargoes than on our own vessels and their car¬ 
goes. But it is undoubtedly impracticable to do this now that 
the principle of maritime reciprocity has obtained so firm a 
foothold. The die was cast when the United States tendered 
and Great Britain in 1850 accepted this rule of ocean trans¬ 
portation. 

The only possible way now in which we can give our ship¬ 
ping in the foreign trade as effective protection against foreign 
competition as we give all other industries by tariff duties is 
through direct aid by government—substantially the same as 
Great Britain gave her merchant marine and her ship-yards 
before their supremacy had been established, and substantially 
the same as France and Italy are to-day giving their shipping 
by their construction and navigation bounties. 

And this aid, too, can be extended, not by resorting to rev¬ 
enue derived from ordinary taxation, but by drawing from the 
revenue of twenty-eight millions of dollars derived by the 
United States Treasury since the war from the tax imposed on 
tonnage engaged in the foreign trade. 

The Democratic party in Congress, with a few noteworthy 
exceptions, have, up to this time, taken the ground that Con_ 
gress ought not to directly or indirectly aid American shipping 


THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE. 


217 


in the foreign trade, either by postal subsidies or by navigation 
or construction bounties, with the view of encouraging the 
construction and maintenance of American steamships and 
sailing-vessels for commercial purposes and for a naval reserve 
in time of war. At the second session of the Forty-eighth 
Congress, the Democratic House after a long contest concurred 
in an amendment appropriating $400,000 to extend more lib¬ 
eral pay to American steamship lines carrying American mails, 
—nearly all the Republicans and thirty Democrats supporting 
the proposition ; but Postmaster-General Vilas refused to carry 
out the policy indicated by Congress, and the House has since 
refused to join the Senate in inaugurating the policy of encour¬ 
aging the establishment of American steamship lines. 

At the second session of the Forty-ninth Congress the 
House Committee on the Merchant Marine, by a vote of all 
the Democratic members but one, reported adversely a bill 
looking to the revival of the American merchant marine in the 
foreign trade by a navigation bounty similar to that now in 
force in France and Italy, and by the same vote reported the 
free-ship bill favorably. All the Republican members of the 
committee and one Democrat favored the first measure and 
opposed the free-ship bill. These two bills were reported in 
the same way, and on the same division, at the first session of 
the Fiftieth Congress. 

On the one hand, the great body of the Democratic Con¬ 
gressmen take the ground that if our citizens are permitted to 
import and register foreign-built ships as American vessels free 
of duty, then the American merchant marine in the foreign 
trade will slowly revive. They further hold that if this result 
does not follow, then it will be demonstrated that foreigners 
can carry on the business of ocean transportation more cheaply 
than we can, and they should be allowed to do so without 
resort to government encouragement or assistance. 

On the other hand, the great body of the Republican Con¬ 
gressmen oppose the free-ship policy as inadequate as a meas¬ 
ure to increase our tonnage, destructive of our ship-building 
interests, subversive of our commercial independence, and 
dangerous in view of its tendency to deprive the nation of 


218 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


ship-building plants as a resource for the construction of cruisers 
and transports in time of war. They further hold that an ex¬ 
penditure of a few millions of dollars annually as a navigation 
bounty and postal subsidy would not only be the most economi¬ 
cal method of securing a naval reserve, guarding against na¬ 
tional dangers and providing for national defense, but also a 
judicious and profitable expenditure to extend our foreign 
trade and build up a powerful merchant marine which in ten 
or fifteen years would secure such a foothold as to be able to 
stand alone. 

History shows that no nation ever reached the highest pros¬ 
perity or developed permanent influence and power, unless it 
possessed an effective merchant marine built in its own ship¬ 
yards, and carrying its flag and its prestige to the countries of 
the earth. The empire of the world is on the rocking waves 
as well as on the rock-ribbed land. 


OUR FOREIGN TRADE. 

By Hon. Julius C. Burrows, M. C. from Michigan. 

The Democratic party in their fierce and persistent assault 
upon our protective system has never hesitated to employ any 
weapon or device which would be of advantage to them in the 
attack. 

To this end they constantly assert, in the face of the well- 
established fact to the contrary, that our protective policy, as 
established and maintained by the Republican party, tends to 
cripple, and will if persisted in ultimately destroy, our foreign 
trade; and that, on the contrary, the abandonment of such a 
policy and the adoption of free trade or a revenue tariff would 
greatly stimulate international traffic, and materially enhance 
our commercial prosperity. In controverting this assumption 
it must not be inferred that its refutation is deemed essential 
to a vindication of the wisdom of our protective policy, for 
even if it were true that our foreign commerce would be aug¬ 
mented by adopting free trade, yet it is affirmed that it would 
be the supremest folly to abandon a system which in its prac¬ 
tical workings has so developed our industries and diversified 
our products as to render us measurably independent of foreign 
nations for the necessities and even the luxuries of life. No 
foreign trade, however opulent, could possibly compensate for 
the impairment or loss of our domestic commerce. If, how¬ 
ever, upon examination it shall be found that under protection 
our foreign trade has had a steady and healthy growth, not 
only will the Democratic assumption that it has declined be 
refuted, but the wisdom of our protective policy will be doubly 
vindicated. 

No more direct or complete refutation of the charge that 
protection cripples our foreign trade can be presented than 
the following table, prepared by the statistician of the Treasury 
Department, showing the extent of such trade, each year, since 

219 


Value of MERCHANDISE Imported into and Exported from the United States from 1790 to 1821 , inclusive; 

ALSO Annual Excess of Imports or of Exports—Specie Values. 


220 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Ui 

« tJ 


C/) 

w 

u 

O 

a 


(/i 

(fi 

U 

X 


u 

<l> 

> 

o 

(/3 


to 
w 
u 
_ O 

^ a 




^ • 

ti (o 

o u 

a o 

JS- 

iS *0 

O G 


S! 


O' « 

m 0 

00 O' O' 

t^'o' 

C'OO 


CO 

'O 0''0 
O 


S cnvo CO VO 
Q w CO CO 
M VO 


VO 


ro fOvo 
. . - ro N 
^ lO M VO O' 


cs 


O' fovo 
ov r^vo 
10 

O ^ H 

M W 


M 


ON 




m O 

*^00 


ro O 
O CO 

o" 


t*^ 0 VO 
'' 4 * ir>vO 
Cl CO 00 


8 

ro 


** tC rnoo 


ONVO 

0 

0 

t-. 0 

• 

t''. ro 

vo 

•^vo ro 

• vo 

O' 0 

CO 

0 

c^ 0 

• t>. 

ro rovo 

ovo d 

! cT 

ro 

VO 

vo 

O' -4- 

. 0 

0 00 


VO 

r. VO^ 

. vo 

vo 

0 " 


t^co 

00 

d d 

CO 

ro 

H 

: 


O w 

m Cl 

to 10 


00 


H Cx CN 
fOVO ro 
■^00 ro 


ro Cl 00 00 W 00 
rooo 00 C^vo 00 10 
0 M lO ON 

vcT O to H 00 VO 

VO VO Cl M 




ro 

ro 

00 

VO 

M 

Oj 


rs. 

O' 

ION 

o 

CO 

10 


. ON 

• CM 

• ^ 
• 

. 

. <N 
. CO 


I 

Cl 


VO M 

to 

M O 

iO d 

O M 

Cl w 


00 Cl ro 
O' ro 
O VO d 

ro ^vcT 

m O Cl 
Cl Cl M 


0 M Cl t^^ooovo roO'’^M roO O coO f^vVO Cx m 
^ vO M O'C>'^r 00 N 0 'C''CivO mvo ro t>. ro ro O' '«J- Cl 

Cl VO CvvO VO '^'O o o ON f O' Cl O'OO Cl O' O 


Cl On ro « O' O' 
ir>vO ro Cl VO O' 

^ 10 M mvo o 


VO 


^ ^ ^ ^ 


roco 


Cl t*^ 
VO lOvO 


8 O'OO ''!• 
Cl r«^ ro Cl 
VO Cl 0 Cl 


c^co ei o C'* Cl 
ro ro vovo 


OnvO VO O'VO VO ro 
fs* M sO O'VO 

CO '^vo O'OO 


» » ^ ^ 


vOOO O Cl vO 
O Cl VO M 
Cl ^ M Cl 


^ ^ 


O VO 

ro ^ 

Cl Cl 


O ro C'^'O 

Cl O VO M 

•^vo H 

♦ 

Cl 

10 ^ 


O' 

t>» M 


Cv Q Cl O' 
lOvO O' O' 
loco 00 VO 

VO ^ VO 
M VO 


ro M 

Cl Cl 

0 O' 

e ^ 

O'VO 
Cl 00 
Cl M 


M t>. ►- VO 

rovo "^vo 

O Cl M 00 


10 

M to 

Cl M 


^ On 


(A 

4-» 

u 

O 

a 

a 



VO O 00 00 M rovO 

0 O "^vo rovo 

t>. r-i t*^ lo rovo 

O' On cT ro rr.vo 

t>. lOvO vovo rovo 
ro VO O Cl ro rovo 


O' M w ^ On M 

Cl CO CO rovo 00 


VO CO 
Cvvo 


ON M M VO '«t' VO 
On M Cnvo 00 



O'OO VO O' VO ro 
Cl ro 10 VOOO VO 


CA 

«-» 

Ui 

o 

a 

X 

w 

*c 3 

o 

H 


CA 

•w 

u 

o 

a 

X 

w 


c 

bt 

*5 

Ui 

o 




vo 

M 

00 Cl 

ro 

d r^vo 

C^ d 

0 

vo Q 

ro 

M ro 0 0 

ro 0 rovo 

p^ 

M 

ro d On ro n O' 

vo 


O' 

ro 

O' 0 

O' d 

00 

d VO 

ro 

p's d vo vovo 

ro P"* ro ro O' 


vo lOVO 

ro d vo VO 

M 

0 

0 vo 

d 

0 Cl 

5 vo 

px 

O' 1 

0 

0 ^ O' M O' 

d O'CO d 

O' 

P'S Tp 10 

M vovo d 

VO 

cT 

ro ONVO 

0 

pc vo 

M 

10 ro 

o' 

i^vcT vo ro o' 

ro P^v^ tC 

vo 

P^ 

pc 0 1^*' 

M Cl H- vo 

0 

M 

vo 0 

d 

00 vo 10 

d vo 


M 00 

0 

ONVO ro ro 

0 vo M d 

VO 

d 

vo d P'sOO O' ■'i" 

d 

0 

M 

0^ 

Os q «3 

lOVO 

O' 

*-• -^co vo vo vo ro 

d P'S ro vooo 

O' 

vo O' VO 

d N- 0 ro 

0" 

O' 0 VO 

ro 

t^vo 

M 00 

o' 

^ d 

vo 

p^ vo M CO d 

d vo M 00 

ps.'O 

cT M pc 

ro 0 C> vo 

d 

H 

d d 

ro 

'^^^0 vOvO f*** 


O' tN. 

vo 

pv O' 0 0 d 

lOvo vo ro 

d 


VOOO 00 

O' P'sVO VO 


VO 

. 

^ O' 
ro 

c:i 


M 00 

0 


Cl ro d 

ON tNv fo r>. 

0 10 d 


d ro 0"0 O' O 
H 10 0 d 00 o 
10 c«H M 10 ro 

M d VO 00 VO 
d 



M d C>. Onvo 00 100 t'*»voO'0vO O'VO ro O' O' 

roiOM o^QN^d ■^vo VO vovo Onco d d 
OnO voO d vo-^vod c^Moo >- rovoOvovo O 


CO O d 
d ro 
10 M VO 


ONroroi'^i'vw d 

t'' ON ro r^oo o O' O' d 
^s.lOd M dvo ONC^rrvo 


VO VO rooo 00 vo vooo 
O' '^00 ro vo d vo 0 Cl 
>^00 11 voM roTj-M ooo 


t>. ro vo 0"0 vo rovo ro O 
d rO'^^rO’^rOM ro vovo 


O' d 
10 M 


o 

d 


'' 1 *vO 00 

d w 


d 


vo 


l'^ On O O'OO 

M M H M M 




0 

Q 

g 

0 

Q 

0 

pvvo 

P's 

d 

ro 

'Vp O' 

M 

Ps. 

d 

Ps d VO 

d vo 

ro 

O' d 

d 

rovo 

g 

psOO 0 

VO 

cj 

I_k 


Q 

Q 

0 

g 

Q 

g 

ON 0 

? 

d 

0 

0 00 vo 

Ps. 

g 

d O' 


0 p^ 

p- 

0 

vo 

ps. 

0 O' 

0 

ro ro P 

ro 


0 

0 

0^ 

0 

0 

0 

q d 

to 

On 

d 

q^ 


0^ 

Ps 10 

lO 

PsVO 

0^ 

F* 

F4 

d 

PIX) 

vo 

POO vo 00 

(A 


vo 

g 


0 

Q 

g" 

4 0" 

t''* 

d" 

0" 

rooo** 

to 

pc 

Ps 

ro O' 

ro 

vovo*^ 


d CO 

cT 

P m' 

ro 

pNif ro 0 

V 

a 

vo 

0 

Q 

0 

0 

0 

vo vo 

d 

■'t* 


P^ 0 

0 vo 00 

vo O' 

ro 

0 vo 

On 

ro 

g 

00 

P^CO 

M 

10 PsOO 

d 

Is* 

vo 

to 

0 

0 

vo 

vo 

P'S CO 

vo 


CO 

Ps 

d^ 

"p- 

ro 

d^vq^ 

''p 

'p ro 

d^ 

q. 

0 

Ps 

O' ps 

rooo 0"0 

vo 

c 


O'OO 

O' 

'^vo 

O' 0 O'OO 

ro 

M 

pCvo*" 

d*" 

IH 

d'^ 

^ 00 


M cT 

VO 

0" 

tnvo 

vo PCO 

r^, 6 

p 

r-N 


M 

M 

H 

d 

d 

ro 

d 

d 

ro 

CO 

-vp ro 




■'p 


ro Tp 

■p 

ro 

d 


pvo 

vo 

ps 10 vo 

vo 


i 


Q 

2 

u 

< 

u 


o 

ro 

u 

V 

x> 

a 

V 

w 

a 

c /3 


O *’< Cl ro vovo hsOO O' Q »i Cl ro vovO t >*00 O' O i* d ro vovo C '^00 O' O n 
O' O' O' O' O' O' O' O O' On 0000000000 *ii*^***i“*^MHHMdd 

CN.00 oooooooooooooooooooooooocooocooocooooooooo 


The years 1790 to 1820 , inclusive, include specie. 









































































Value of MERCHANDISE Imported into and Exported from the United States from 1822 to 1852, inclusive; 

ALSO Annual Excess of Imports or of Exports—Specie Values. 


OUR FOREIGN TRADE. 


221 


U 

<u t; 

O O W! 

<3^ 


(/3 

u 

O 

a 




^o 

VO 

o» 

o 

0> 

Os 

H 


fO 

00 

w 

m 


rn 

O 

o 

M 


M 

H M 

W 00 
^ #** 

0 

ro 

M fO 

t^oo 


Os O O 
W M 0 t^VO 
*H O 00 M M 
^ ^ ^ ^ 0* 
00 »o fnvo VO 
^ ITi <rj 10 10 
^00 H 00 ^ 


O' 




o 


05 . 

tj 05 

^ w 
O U 

s& 

!l!w 

5^3 
O G 
fH 



u 


d 

m mco 

0 

m 

^ t’x On -^VO CO M 

d 

• 

d 

vo 

• 


mvo 

# 

• 

Os 

Mh 

s • 


d 

CO 0 

00 

CO rn 


mvo tx m d VO 

k 

00 

d 

• 

d 

d d 

# 

• 


0 

0 2 


0 vo vo 

m 

O'OO 

m 

cooo 0 q 00 m CO 


• 

d 

d 

• 



• 

• 


c/5 

*M 


VO 

0 d 

CO 

0 " m" 

''t 

tx 10 rC ’'t t^vcT so 

Cx 

» 

©o' 

0 

t 

d* 

cT M** 

• 

• 

tx 

C/5 

2 0 



ds d 

O' 

'tt CO 


'*t ''t O' tx CO m 

tx 


Q 

M 

• 

0 




M 

0^ 

^ <x 


''t- 

M CO 

tx 


q. 

CO M 0 mvo tx 


• 

0 


• 

00 

CO M 

# 

• 

CO 

a 

k. ^ 

s a 


M 

M 00 

CO 

0 *'vD* 


d CO CO O' M 

tx 


c5s 

m 


CO 

0 CO 

• 

« 

0 

K 



H 

d M 

d 

d M 

M 

M H M M H d M 

M 

• 

• 

• 


d 

• 

• 

• 


■'t 

• 

• 

• 

• 

CO 


Lx] 









# 



• 



• 

• 



<0 

•Si 


Cl ts. O'©© VO VO 

M O 1^5 O 

Tj- foso d O' C^ 

S'*? 


Os t^OO Cl 
CnVO Cl O'VO 

M t'., 


\n 




m M o 

10 M ts.. 

o O' o 


O' ro Cl 

M r^vo 

d H VO 

0* 0 0 

H VO d 
Cxvo VO 


d 

t'x d 
M VO 

^VO 

O 

d H 


10 

d 0 ® 

*n 1000 

O' VO VO 00 

m Tj- fo o 

M M M M d 


Cx fO '^vo 
fo fN. 1000 d 
O VO 00 d 


O 0^00 00 
M M rooo 

d d d d 


O' 

0 

o 

t-N 

CO 


O 00 OsOO lOVO 
CO 10 d CO VO 
O'©© VO VO O O 
^ ^ ^ 
iriOO 00 C'^ 10 CO 
»-• d m 

O' O' C''* O' C''» O' 

w cToo ►T 10 

M O VO d CO O' 

d d d d d M 


cooo 

CO 

m 

CO 

CO 

H 



O' 0 


m 

m 

d 

d 

CO 

d 

moo 

O' 

d 

0 

M 

M 

d 

d 


CO Cv O' 
M m 
CO O' »H 


H d 00 Os 
c>. d 
cn d VO VO 


m O' ii-)vo 
ovo d moo 00 d 
H 00 moo vO 

Cv 0"0 M O' 
d C^OO 00 M Os 
d d d d CO CO cn 




m M 

0 

M 00 CO mvo 

O' d 

CO Q m rt cooo vo vo 

M 

-^vo 

d 

m 

O' ’'t 

O'VO 

O'OO 



Os Cx 

CO •- 

M rooo M m 

txvo 

■'tO O'mOoo mo 

"t Cx 

VO 0 

d vo 

’'It 

O' d 

d 

0 

tn 


vq^ CO 

0 comO'O O'O'M tx 

O'txd MOO d O'C'* 

m 0 

Tcvq^ 

CO 0 

COVO 

M 

m 


CO 

■ 4 ^ 


M M 

0 O' 

CO d 0 00 0 

m M 

tx^'^O'd OVOOO 

tx m 

CO ■'t 


''j- 

-^00 vo 


M 

0 

0 


CxOO 

txOO 

O' ccj d 00 d 

00 d 

•^Ovo Cxtxtxom 

m tx 

’'t 6 

00 

M 

d CO 0 

0 

tx 


CX 


00 ’'t 

M H 

0 CO 0 0 txOO M 

ovo txm'^O'-^d 

O' 0 

^v 5 ^ 

M 

0 

^VO 

c^ 

m 

tx 


a 


cJ d*" 

d 0 

00 M M tx d 

m m 

m'^o^vcTvo 0 ^sooo 

d'^vcT 

cT cT 

CO 

tC 

cT CO 

M 

CO 

o'* 

0 

tx 

a 


tx tx 

Cx O' 

Cx txOO vo so 

O' Os 

0 0 cotxcoo'mo' 

d O' 

''t 0 

M 

M 

d 

Tt 

Cx 

M 

0 

MH 





I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

H 

H 

M 

M 

M M 

H 

M 

d 

d 


c /5 

<w 

u 

o 

a 

w 

H 

<«-» 

o 

H 


J! 


C^vO 


O' cooo so O' covO VO 
m*-« 'vcoM mM M 
doo doooo dvo O' 


d 00 moo M 
^ O '^vO VO 
VO 00 ’«!J- C'h'O 

C'^ d d d 

m 0^00 - . _ _ _ _ 

covo o* m C"* o ''too O' O'VO d m co 

M* CO cT cood^ tC m cf^ moo ^od* cT i-T t-T cT co 
O' O' O' O'©© O'c>*c>*o »-• *-• comoM o d 


''t '^vo VO d m mvo O vo 
fr.vo vo r^vo vo ►- d d 


O CO d H m 
d b** CO c^ O' 
M mvo O' ^ Os 

coocT 00 c^ cC 
ts mvo M cn 
'J t O' d vo 00 00 


Os 

Os 


Osd WOOOO mdvO Osh 

00 COM tj-O'm r^d mco 
vooo H d mmM tN.d d 

mmo coHrcTHTinm-^ 
d -^oo •'«t O' m cx M 00 
00 c^O mc>*M cocoosos 

cT mso ^vcTod^ '000 so 
00 O O o mco^'t'^toovo 

MMMMHMHMM 


(/) 

«-» 

u 

O 

a 

K 

w 


(/) 

o 

B 

o 

Q 




d 

m moo 

0 00 

Cx O' 

• 


d 

CO 0 00 

ro CO tx 

^ mvo 

c 

• 

0 vo vo 

m 

O'OO m 

moo 0 

. 5 ? 


VO 

0 d 

CO 

cT hT 

tx m tx 



tx 

tx d 

Os 

CO ’’t 

■'t tx 

*53 
\ _ 



M CO 

tx 

q 

CO M 0 

0 


M 

hToO 

CO 

dso 

d CO CO 



M 

d M 

d 

d H M 

MMM 


0 SO coHddOOMmco 
r^.r^rnd'O roo''^t^com 
000 mcot^dvo H cod tv 

r' »■ 

^ t'^'O vo d 
o CO mso vo 
t>* mvo cn, t>. M 


moo H vo 
CO moo o 
CO o d 


'^VO M 

m O 
t^OO O ''t 


M M d M 


^ "^vq 
O' o 


t'sVO 00 M 00 
M d g 00 


o 

0 0 0 
d 00 00 


CO H ^ 
O' O' d 00 

O' mvo vo M m m CO 
coHoovovooo "'^t^O'm 
M d moo M O'VO Tt d O 
0000000000 
mvo t^vo t^oo O' O d 


m M 

O' 

cJvO CO 

K M M 

« t^OO 
^ O' d 


O M 00 CO m'O O' d 

M M rooo M m t>*vo 

O comO'O O'Osh 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
O H 
d 00 
CvOO 


^8 
O' C' 


m m O 
O' m O'©© 
d M 00 00 


CO M vo d 
covo CO 
m m d d 


O o* CO d O 00 
t^oo os CO d 00 
M M o CO 0 O 


K O' ^ O' O ^ 


d -H- 6 vo r*^oo 
M o vo t's m d 


m Q vo O' 

_ d vo CO Os 

mvo vo so t'^ 


d O 00 M M d 
r*H O' t '^00 so vo 


rnmnoovovo '^mn m com 
O'O'O O cot'*»^OsO O Os 

M H H H M H M 


"0 O d O' H COOO Ch 
mtxco'it'^Ooo coco"^ 
cot^coOoo d H M 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
VO M moo CO O O O M 
oocomMt>*0 »-*Odco 
vo m ‘'t m d tN O'VO Os 

O'OO M o O H ^00 ^ 
t'^O'O'O mcocofotNin 

H H H H H H H 


O 

Z 

Q 

X 

M 

X 

< 

Cd 


i 

CO 

u 

a; 

Xi 

B 

0) 

w 

cx 

V 

(A 


i 

CO 


d CO ^ mvo t'soo O' O H d CO mvo t^-oo O' o h d 

d d d d d d d d COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO'^'^ 

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 

HMMMMMHHHMHMHHMMHMMMM 


V 

a 

G 


Q. 

m ’'It mvo t^oo Os o M d 

00000000000000000000 

MMHHHHHHHH 


Nine months. 










































































Value of MERCHANDISE Imported into and Exported from the United States from 1853 to 1887, inclusive; 

ALSO Annual Excess of Imports or of Exports—Specie Values. 


222 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


U 


CO 


u 

o 


B5 i" ^ 


CO 

CO 

o 

o 

X 

w 


u 

c; 

> 

o 

CO 

•4.J 

o 

g-' 


CO 

Ui 

O 

a 

a 


Co 




fD OMO W 
00 tx O C» 00 
cc 00 CO 

^ r* ^ ^ 

fo a> w 
00 ^ O' M o 

OJ VO CO Cl VO 

# ^ 

o 00 o 
VO CO 10 


O N O 
O' VO O 

c^ o 
o'^vcT 

fO Tf 10 

o f'' 
^ ^ ^ 

00 O Ov 
CO VO 


00 CO tv 
VO ov tv 
fO Ci CO 
^ ^ 

M OVO 
tv Q H 10 
cnvo t^ ov 
^ ^ ^ 
O t^ 04 CO 
CO CO IvOO 
H 


CO M N 
CO ^00 
Ov lOVO VO 

COCO vcT 

moo 00 00 

w CO iH 


O vO 

O 


H 00 

O '00 
m " 1 “ w 
^ ^ 

CO two 
O M m 
"^vo 


M m M ro tv 
O CO Tj- t^oo 


Ov 


• CO 

• 

• tv 

• 0 ‘ 

• SJ 
. vO 

. 10 

I 

* M 


J! 


O 

N 

VO 

W 

tv 

VO 

00 


o 

00 

fO 

fO 


. 00 

• M 

• O' 

• 00 

• vq^ 

• 

I'd 

♦ ^ 

. CO 

. 

• 

. 00 

• 

• 00 

• d 

• M 

‘ tv 


O' COVO 

o w 'O 


OJ 00 tooo VO VO CO 
mhOOOOmwO''^ 
O' two O' '^'O 


N M CO w 
m M vo 00 M 
M 00 vO VO 


N 00 CO w 00 PO 

0 m M \o 00 VO 

tv O'VO 00 O o 00 


M tv tv 

m mvo VO 

H W M 


O' m o 
m oi o 

w H 


two ^ 

H 


CO 

w 


^ . 

u ^ 

o t: 
o. O 

a g- 

::w 

rt — 

4 -» 'O 

O G 

^ c3 


CO 

u 

O 

a 

a 


tv 
K VO 


O' H CO N CO Cl VO coco w 
O'*^ POO N O'tvtv two 
mc< ivM O'POM COM ci 


M coco tv O'VO VO N PON N tvMVOOOVO 
tvCJO 00 CO CO tv two vO COOO ^VO O' M 
MOO CON COO MOOVO M fOMOO CON N 


^ M VO es -'♦•VO Ov 
O tvCOM OOOVO tv 
^ O'OO CO CO o O' O' 


NCO H N O'CON ^tvO m 

00 H m m ''ij* CO O'VO n 0 00 

m two nconmooocon 


'^M lvO'’^0 CONVO O'OO moo tv tv 
tv two 00 N CO'^tvM#© O'M M 

two W covo tv o two VO M tv O' w 


CO M H 
O' ^00 
m O M 


O M tv Q W 
N M M VO O 
O w tv O' m 


’^'O M N m ^ tvoo o tv m CO o O' cooo co o co'o 
COtvOv-^CONOO 000 -^tvCOO O'fOO tJVO tvVO m 

m mvo mvo vo m co two vo tvoo O' o m m o 


8 


CO M vo 
m CO m 

0mm 


ro m m tvoo O' ^00 
O'^tv^OMMO 
mm^^m'^coco'^ 


M M 


M M M H 




m O'OO 
vo CO o 

N o tv 

^ 

tv cooo 
tv N o 

tv VO 00 
CO t^ t^ 

vo O' m 
N W N 


O W 
M m 
CO covo 


O 00 CO 

M T^-VO 

CO CO N 


o 


O'OO tv O 

tv O 00 tv M 

CO "Stvo O N 


N vo 0 vo 

ro O' N 

CO M M 


M O'Ci tvmcoovovo 
^ M "^vo M CO 00 vo 

CO M mvo 00 N m 0 

cToo 00 ^ covcT o v^T mtvmN ►^v^Tvooo com'cTv^TmM co 
CON cocoM M mco'^'«t'Mvo coo mN OvcoO O ^n 
'( t* CO covo CO CO CO tvoo tv'^mO'N mn ^0 tvco 

M CO O' O' covo 00 '♦•mtvtvmovo n tvroo mi 
CO moo 00 '^tM cocoovmM con n "t-vo co'o m 
COCON M N CON '«^•co^o•'^''^ mvo vo m m 


N mvo 00 ^ CO O'VO 00 

COtv-<fN tvfc- OvN CO'O 
m tv two m 0"0 CO M tv 

M*' tv ^ O' o' tv tC'd' <> 
m tv mvo cooo O' N co m 
o tv o "0 vo M vo m CO 


tvmtvN ''iJ'COtvtvmN 
CO -^VO N N VO tv CO O' 
^ ■'T'o VO tv two mvo vo 


cn 

u 

O 

a 

K 

W 

*c3 

o 

H 


N o CO CO O 
.00 vo O N vo 

^ m m tv 

h O' O' O' O' CO 

00 m o M N 
O' O' N 00 

^ covd'ocf ►T CO 

Q O CO M 00 O' 
^ N N N N N 


•'4* 

tv 

N 


M tv CO M 

m m CO o 
O O 00 m 


tvoo CO N 
"<•00 O N 
^ O' CO m 


M O' tvoo 00 vo 
^ O' C"0 tvOO 
M 00 vo tv M m 


N vo CO o tv O' O'VO N tv M o tv 

O tv m two CON momM tvN tv 

O' m mvo O'OO o 00 m o m tvoo m 

pT CO O' ^ cood^vcTaT •i* m^vcT n cT ^ 

O' CO M ^ O mvo 

N CO N W N 


O'OO 00 
CO N N N 


O' 

CO 




N o M M QVO MOOVO tvN O'mO M 
N '^M tvNvo ^m^^mo 0 mcoM 
<> tvVO N tv -^vo CO N -^VO tvCO N 

O' CO pT m m O'OO tv n*^ O' co O' co 
tvoo ■»roo tvvo cocotv^fOMOo noo 
N CO -^00 ''*-vo CO moo m M m M 

Nvo cocrpr'^fd mcTd^cocTcT d'vcT 

Noo M ^0 O'M coo mN ’^’^tvM 
m m m mvo vo tvoo O' 


tvOO tv two tv 


t/i 

4-> 

u 

O 

CX 

X 

W 


c 

b4) 

'S 

u 

O 

b 


o 

(/) 

V 

a 

o 

Q 


5? 

CO 
M 


O 00 N 
VO VO tv 
N CO CO 

M 00 M 

CO moo 

vo M tv 




M VO 

N N 


tv M 

M <«#• 

tv 

tv m H m 

0 

N O' 

Q 

m 


tv CO 

M 

tv covo m 

N 

ro O' 

Q 

O' 

0 N 

qo 

N 

■<#• m O' 0 


CO O' 

0 

N 

J?v8' 

O' CO 

m 0 CO O' 

M 

O' N 

M 

m 

0 CO 

m 

N vo cooo 


M VO 

m 

m 

o>vq 

m covo 

0 O' CO 0 

CO 

tv m 

O' M 

0 

^ tv 

i-T tv m d 

M 

N 

o*'vd 

M N 

M M 

M 

M M H N 

M 

M M 

M 

H 


0 

tv 

N 


m CO O' M 
moo M M 
«^j-vo vo 

o vd' O'OO 

O' m 


'^vo 00 M m O' m 
N o o m o ON 

O' "^vo CO CO m 


O tv ^ 

tv m o 

tv tvoo 


H 00 

O 00 

CO N 


S 


•^00 M 00 CO M 


'^vo 00 N M 

O m O' O' m 


m two 

M M M 


^ N ^ 


O^vo ^ 
N*' M 00 


N moo vo O O 
O M Tt o vo 0 
covo m m m M 

tv O' m m CO CO 

H M M M M M 


N O 
.VO 0 
M CO 

\ r 

^ O'OO 

.Q vo N 

^ 00 CO 

^ o" m 
Q 00 M 
^ H N 


m H CO 
CO m M 

M O tv 

m'" 00 Vif 

m CO o 

tv O' 

^ r* 

N vo 00 

0"0 tv 

M N N 


CO O covo 
coco N M N 
o O Ttvo O 

^ ^ 

M N N O' 
m O' Tt- O' 

CO CO N 00 vo 

hToo vd' O'VO covo tv O' O' mvo 00 00 
m tv M O tvOO •'t CO CO two tv tv N N 

NNCONMMHMCONNNCO-Tf'^j- 


N tvOO N O' Q tv rOOO M 
HN'^OOOO'tvQCO 
O' O N H 00 0"0 O' H 

dodv^T dviTvood t^ 
O Tt M 00 00 vo M O'OO 
mo'mtvCOM'o co"^ 

^ r- •* ^ r- 


CO 

8 


O' M O tv •<#■00 0 COtvN N NVO O'CO 
CON 0 '^N'O 0'm-<#-cocom’i#'N N 
''#*’^M N N N tv CO O' two 00 O' m O' 

coco’^pT o O'cTvd m(>co*<fd -^pT 

CO cooo 00 tvO *i"'^N CONVOOOVO N 
o N mvo tv CO O' O' N N O'VO O' o 

mo'O'mO'Ooo cococo*^ "^vcT m co 

OVO O'NOOOO OVNOO COOW NVO O 

m m m mvo vo 00 00 tvoo tv two tv 


i 


Q 

M 

< 


CO,,,,,,...,.. . I I \ I I , \ * ' * * * 

^ I ; ; c I I I I ’ ! I I I I ! ; I ! ! ! : : I ! r • ; ‘ • * ' • * * • 

£. 

P CO mvo tvOO O' O M N CO ^ m'O tvOO O' o m N co mvo tvoo O' O m n co mvo IV. 

m m m m m m m'O vovovovovovovovo tvtvtvtvtNtvtvtvt^tv Koo 00 to to to to to to 

OOCOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOVOOOTOTOOOTOTOOOTOTOTOTOTOTOOOOOOOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTO 

HHOOHMMMMMHMHMMMMHMMMMHHMMMHMMHMMMMM 














































































OUR FOREIGN TRADE. 


223 


the foundation of the government, covering, therefore, the eras 
both of protection and free trade. We have but to contrast 
the one period with the other, in the light of this official ex¬ 
hibit, to discover how utterly groundless the charge that pro¬ 
tection restricts and revenue tariff promotes foreign commerce. 

From this table it will be observed that in 1861, at the 
close of the last period of a revenue tariff which began in 1846, 
our total exports were only valued at $219,553,833, while our 
imports amounted to $289,310,542, aggregating a total foreign 
trade of only $508,864,375 ; while in 1887, under continuous 
protection since 1861, our exports increased to $716,183,211, 
and imports to $692,319,768, swelling our foreign commerce in 
1887 to the enormous value of $1,408,502,979—an increase of 
nearly 200 per cent. 

From the close of our civil war in 1865 to 1881 our foreign 
commerce increased from $404,744,883 to $1,545,041,974—a 
growth in 16 years of nearly 300 per cent; while the increase 
in the 16 years of a revenue tariff was from $227,497,313 in 
1846 to $508,864,375 in 1861—less than 125 per cent. In this 
connection it would be well to call attention to the fact that 
while our foreign trade increased nearly 300 per cent from 1865 
to 1881, yet the foreign commerce of free-trade England only 
advanced from $2,384,117,140 to $3,377,863,266—an average of 
but 50 per cent. In a decade of a revenue tariff from 1851 to 
1861 our annual imports per capita averaged only $10.73, 
our exports but $9.94, aggregating an annual foreign trade per 
capita of $20.67; while during a decade of protection, from 
1871 to 1881, our annual imports averaged $13.50, and our ex¬ 
ports $14.93 making an average foreign trade per capita of 
$28.43. ^ recent speech in the House of Representatives 

Mr. Dingley of Maine, speaking upon this point, said: 

“ There is no basis for the oft-repeated assertion that the 
protective tariffs of the United States since 1861 have restricted 
the export trade of the United States, which, it is assumed, 
the revenue tariffs in force from 1846 to 1861 had specially 
fostered. 

“ According to the official statement of Mr. Evans, of the 
Treasury Department, our exports increased only 16J per cent 


224 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


in the revenue-tariff decade between 1851 and 1861, or 60 per 
cent if the years 1850 and i860 are compared; while in the 
protective decades between 1861 and 1871 our exports increased 
146 per cent, and between 1871 and 1881 increased 59f per 
cent. Our total experts in the decade ending with i860 were 
eight hundred and fourteen and one half millions; in the 
decade ending with 1880 they were fifty-one hundred and 
twelve millions.” 

It is worthy of note, furthermore, in connection with the 
foregoing table, that during the periods of a revenue tariff the 
balance of trade was almost invariably against us, while the 
periods of protection have usually been attended with a bal¬ 
ance of trade in our favor. 

It will be observed that previous to the tariff of 1824, cover¬ 
ing a period of 35 years of inadequate protection, there were 
but five years in which the balance of trade was not against us; 
while in the succeeding period of protection, from 1824 to 
1832, there was not a single year in which the balance of trade 
was not in our favor. In four years after the adoption of the 
revenue tariff of 1833, the balance of trade was again adverse; 
and from 1837 to 1846, in spite of the beneficial influence of 
the tariff of 1842, the aggregate of our imports was in excess of 
our exports by several millions. Then came the revenue tariffs 
of 1846 and 1857, and from 1848 to 1861 inclusive, there was but 
a single year in which the balance of trade was not heavily 
against us. During the thirteen years of a revenue tariff, im¬ 
mediately preceding 1861, there was but one year when the 
balance of trade was in our favor; while in the last thirteen 
years under protection, there has been but a single year when 
the balance of trade was against us. But further comment is 
unnecessary. The simple presentation of our trade statistics 
for the century is sufficient answer to the assumption that pro¬ 
tection retards and free-trade promotes our foreign commerce. 

But touching generally the question of our foreign com¬ 
merce, there is no more effective \vay of promoting it than by 
the establishment of regular and speedy postal communication 
with other nations. Without this, commerce is impossible. 
We cannot expect to trade with a people until mail facilities 


OUR FOREIGN TRADE. 


225 


have been established. Sherman Crawford, a great English 
statesman, speaking of the importance of such connection, said: 
“ Wherever postal communication has been extended there 
commerce has invariably been attracted. In fact the convey¬ 
ance of the mails has proved a most efficient agency for increas¬ 
ing our trade in all parts of the world. I for one hold that 
there are considerations to be taken into account in this matter 
which are wholly apart from the question of the profit and loss 
arising upon the accounts of the Post-office. This difference is 
not considerable; but whatever it is, that difference represents 
the whole cost to this country of the means by which not only 
the commercial but the social and political connection between 
this country and the world is kept up.” 

Again, Sir Charles Wood wrote to the Secretary of the Post- 
office in October, 1867, as follows: 

“ It has been the perception of the bearing of increased 
postal communication on the wealth and progress of the country 
that has induced statesmen of late years to consent to fiscal 
sacrifices for the purpose of obtaining it. There can be no 
doubt that increased postal communication implies increased 
relations, increased commerce, investment to English capital; 
and from all these sources the prosperity of England is greatly 
increased.” 

Appreciating this necessity, the leading nations of Europe 
establish and maintain, by means of liberal subsidies, postal 
communication with all those countries with which they have 
trade relations. There is scarcely a commercial nation on the 
face of the globe, save the United States, that does not pay a 
liberal subsidy for carrying its foreign mails, amounting in the 
aggregate to many millions annually. The following are the 
subsidies paid by some of the leading commercial nations: 


France. 

Great Britain. 

Germany. 

Italy.. 


Austria. 


Belgium.... 


Spain... 


Brazil. 











226 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Holland. 400,000 

Hungary. 400,000 

The Netherlands. 100,000 

British India. 550,ooo 


The United States, for its entire foreign mail service last 
year, paid only a trifle over $400,000, and seven eighths of that 
we generously donated to foreign lines. While other nations 
by means of liberal compensation for the carriage of their mails 
are pushing their commerce into every part of the habitable 
globe, we, by refusing to pay more than the postage on the 
mail carried, are not only driving our mails from American 
bottoms, but our flag from the seas. 

While foreign nations are thus generously sustaining their 
mail-steamship lines, we have restricted our postal authorities 
to the payment of only the sea and inland postage on the mails 
carried. Thus the postage on a letter from the United States 
to the Argentine Republic, or to any of the countries of South 
America, is five cents, the domestic being two cents, and the 
sea postage three cents; so that under this limitation the Post¬ 
master-General can pay only five cents for carrying a letter to 
these or any foreign country by an American steamship, what¬ 
ever the distance or whatever the advantage of the service. 
How is it possible, therefore, for an American line, receiving 
only the sea and inland postage on the mails carried, to compete 
for the ocean commerce with the heavily subsidized lines of 
foreign nations? We protect our factory on the land, but 
leave the American steamship to contend, unaided, with the 
merciless competition of foreign rivals. 

The practical result of this policy of restricting the compen¬ 
sation for carrying our foreign mails to the sea and inland post¬ 
age has driven the carriage of our mails to foreign bottoms, so 
that our entire trans-Atlantic mail-service is to-day performed 
by foreign lines, for which we paid last year the sum of $314,380; 
while our trans-Pacific mails, for which we paid last year the sum 
•of $38,465, were carried by foreign lines except that carried by 
the Pacific Mail line, to which we paid only the sum of $9651; 
thereby putting $343,104 into the pockets of the foreign ship¬ 
owners. We have refused even to aid in establishing postal 






OUR FOREIGN TRADE. 


227 


communications by American steamships with the countries of 
Central and South America, and the result is that except in the 
ports of Venezuela and Brazil, the American flag is seldom 
seen. For years the Argentine Republic offered to contribute 
annually $100,000 to establish a mail-steamship line between 
her ports and the United States, if we would donate a like 
amount, but we persistently refused. As the result of this 
policy we have substantially lost the trade of Central and South 
America, aggregating an amount of more than $850,000,000 
annually. Of this trade the United States has but $150,000,000. 
It is humiliating to the last degree that we permit foreign na¬ 
tions to carry off a trade lying at our very doors. 

Mr. Polk, speaking of this subject in the American Congress, 
said : “ It is strange, sir, that men who are presumed to embody 
the wisdom of the land should have to be reminded that they 
are pandering to British power, that they are forgetting Ameri¬ 
can interests, and losing sight of that greatness and grandeur 
that belongs to this American government. I stand upon the 
floor of the American Congress, and find men who are willing 
to measure our greatness by the circumference of a dollar, 
measure American prosperity, American greatness, by a round 
dollar, and thus pander to British interests; to bow the pliant 
knee, and say to the power that assailed us at Lexington, that 
flashed the first guns from Bunker Hill, that fought us upon 
the sea and land in 1812, that has been jealous of our prosperity 
and greatness ever since, ‘ Good mother, wont you carry our 
mails for us?’ Why, sir, I scorn, I despise this un-American 
feeling and sentiment. The men who stand battling upon 
these principles are behind the age. They are behind the 
progress of this country. They know nothing of its power, and 
are contributing to a combination of foreign policy designed to 
overslaugh us.” 

The effect of this policy can be best shown by one or two 
examples. Take the empire of Brazil, with which we have but 
a single American steamship line. Her annual imports are 
$90,000,000. In 1883 she bought of Great Britain more than 
$15,000,000 worth of cotton goods, and in the same year of the 
United States but a little over $600,000. Is there any reason 


I 


228 THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 

why we with our great cotton-fields and with a line open from 
our ports to the ports of this empire should not supply her 
people with the fabrics of our looms ? The same year she 
bought of Great Britain 92,000 hats and caps, of the United 
States 119. Great Britain sold her of iron and steel in 1883 
$5,674,000, while the United States sold her but a trifle over 
$1,000,000. Of her wearing apparel Great Britain furnished her 
$1,250,000 worth, the United States but $17,000. To summar¬ 
ize the matter, in the last twenty years Great Britain has sold 
to the inhabitants of Brazil $630,000,000 of manufactured prod¬ 
ucts, while the United States has sold her but $138,000,000. 

Why is it that we have so little of this Brazilian trade? 
Simply because we have no adequate communication with her 
people. We have but one steamship line of three vessels 
making monthly trips between New York and the ports of this 
empire, while at the same time there are three English lines 
having 35 steamers, French lines with 19 steamers, German 
lines with 15 steamers aggregating 89 vessels from these three 
countries holding regular direct communication with this 
empire. All these lines are paid liberal compensation for car¬ 
rying the mails, Brazil herself paying a million dollars to aid in 
the establishment and maintenance of these postal and com¬ 
mercial relations, while we pay the American line only the 
postage collected on the mail carried. 

How is it with the Argentine Republic, a republic fashioned 
after our own, with a president, two houses of congress, and 
all the machinery of government modeled after this great re¬ 
public. It has a population of 3,000,000 people. Its capital 
city has a population of 500,000, 40,000 of whom are English- 
speaking. In 1884 this republic purchased $94,000,000 worth 
of manufactured products. Of this sum Great Britain sold her 
$30,000,000; France, $17,000,000; Germany, $9,000,000; Bel- 
ium, $7,250,000; the United States, $7,500,000; Spain, 
$5,000,000; Italy, $4,000,000; the United States furnishing only 
a trifle over 8 per cent of all her imports. In 1883 England 
sold her in cotton goods alone $9,000,000 in value, while the 
United States sold her only $150,000. How do we account for 
this paucity of trade with the Argentine Republic? The an- 


OUR FOREIGN TRADE. 


229 


swer is plain. We have no postal communication with this 
people. In 1884 there arrived at the harbor of Buenos Ayres 
3626 steamships, not one of them carrying the American flag. 
The same year 3775 sailing vessels anchored in that harbor, and 
to-day 200 splendid steamers are plying between Buenos Ayres 
and European ports. Of this total shipping 34 per cent is under 
the British flag; 16 per cent under the French ; 9 per cent un¬ 
der the German ; 24 per cent under other nations, and this coun¬ 
try has the miserable representation of 2 per cent only of the 
sailing-Vv^ssels. In 1862 there was no direct line of steamers 
between Europe and the Argentine Republic. These lines have 
all been established since that date through the instrumentality 
of liberal subsidies. 

The last Republican administration sought to remedy this 
national folly, and for that purpose authorized the President of 
the United States to appoint a commission to visit the countries 
of Central and South America and report what steps were nec¬ 
essary to increase our commercial intercourse with these nations. 
That commission was appointed by President Arthur, com¬ 
pleted its work, and made its report, in which among other 
things it said, “ That in order to secure more intimate commer¬ 
cial relations between the United States and the several 
countries of Central and South America there must be regular 
and direct steamship communication.” The commission further 
say, “ In order to encourage the construction of vessels, in 
order to secure means of communication between the United 
States and the markets of Central and South America, it has 
been suggested that Congress authorize the Postmaster-General 
to advertise for proposals for carrying the mails to and from 
the ports of Central and South America for a period of ten 
years, and make contracts for that period with the lowest re¬ 
sponsible bidder under restrictions which will guarantee as low 
charges per mile for freight and passengers as are paid to for¬ 
eign vessels in order that the merchants of the United States 
seeking the South American trade may enjoy the advantage of 
nearness as an offset to the higher rate of wages paid for labor 
in this country.” Acting upon the report and recommendation 
of this commission, the Republican party clothed the Post- 


230 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


master-General with power to contract for a South American 
mail service upon a more liberal basis than the sea and inland 
postage, by providing as follows: 

“ For the transportation of foreign mails, including transit 
across the Isthmus of Panama, $800,000; and the Postmaster- 
General is hereby authorized to enter into contract for the 
transportation of any part of said foreign mails, after a legal 
advertisement, with the lowest responsible bidder at a rate not 
exceeding 50 cents a nautical mile on the trip each way actually 
traveled between the terminal points: Provided^ That the 
mails so contracted shall be carried on American steamships, 
and that the aggregate of such contracts shall not exceed one- 
half the sum hereby appropriated.” 

The enforcement of this law would have increased our postal 
facilities with the South American countries, and brought to 
us an enlarged commerce, and furnished an easy outlet for the 
surplus products of our ever-increasing manufactures. But 
before this law was put into operation the Republican party 
went out of power. The present administration declined to 
execute this law, and refused to use a single dollar appropriated 
by the last Republican administration to encourage our trade 
with the South American countries. 

In the Forty-ninth Congress the Republican Senate attached 
to the post-office appropriation bill a provision dedicating 
$800,000 to increasing our mail facilities with the countries of 
Central and South America, but the Democratic House of 
Representatives refuse to concur. 

And so upon this question the issue is made up between the 
two parties. The Republican party believes in such liberal 
pay to American steamship lines for the carriage of our foreign 
mails as will stimulate American ship-building and promote 
our foreign commerce. While the Democratic party refuses all 
aid to American lines even for carrying the United States mails, 
preferring to pay tribute to our subsidized foreign rivals. It 
is to be hoped when the Republican party again resumes con¬ 
trol of this government it will be able to carry out a policy 
which will facilitate our foreign trade and restore the Repub¬ 
lic to its rightful supremacy on the sea. 


INTERNAL REVENUE. 


By Hon. Green B. Raum, of Illinois. 

The total income of the government during the four years 
of President Buchanan’s administration, aside from loans, was 
$205,126,374, while the expenditures for the same period were 
$262,500,558, being $57,374,184 in excess of the receipts. 

The Morrill tariff act, which was approved by Mr. Buchanan 
the day before the inauguration of President Lincoln, greatly 
increased the duties on imports, and laid the foundation for the 
large receipts which afterwards followed from this source; but 
as soon as the War of the Rebellion began it was fully realized 
by Republican statesmen that the preservation of the Union 
would require not only marshaling of mighty armies, but the 
expenditure of enormous sums of treasure. 

The Session of Congress which convened in December, 1861 
immediately took up the subject of providing the Ways and 
Means for carrying on the war. It was fortunate for the coun¬ 
try that the right man for this mighty work was then a member 
of the House of Representatives, and was appointed Chairman 
of the Committee on Ways and Means. This man was Thad- 
deus Stevens of Pennsylvania. He possessed the knowledge, 
experience, influence, and courage for the task. 

At the very outset Mr. Stevens insisted that taxation and 
loans must go hand in hand ; that it would be impossible to 
carry on the war and maintain the credit of the government by 
raising money by loans only; that the receipts from customs 
would be totally inadequate to supply the needs of the govern¬ 
ment ; consequently, that resort must be had immediately to 
direct and internal taxation. 

An act was passed June 7th, 1862, levying a direct tax of 
twenty million dollans, which, under the Constitution, was ap¬ 
portioned amongst the several States according to population. 
The amount levied against the people of the loyal States was 

231 


232 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


$15,054,517, and the amount levied against the people of the 
States in rebellion was $4,945,501. The law provided that 
this tax should be levied and collected from the real estate of 
the country. The legislatures of the loyal States wisely made 
provision for the payment of this tax from the State treasuries* 
If this course had not been adopted the tax would have been 
assessed upon all the real estate of the country; it would have 
taken precedence of and interfered with the State levies; and 
would no doubt have bred a multiplicity of complications in 
real-estate titles. This direct tax was enforced in parts of all 
the rebellious States. The total amount collected in these 
States was $2,414,284; and there yet remains uncollected of the 
tax in the the Southern States the sum of $2,531,217—the col¬ 
lection of which has been postponed from time to time. A bill 
recently passed the Senate of the United States which relieves 
the people of Southern States from the payment of the amount 
of this tax due from them, and refunding to the States the 
amount paid by each of them respectively. The passage of 
this bill was prevented by the systematic filibustering of a 
large number of Democrats from the South, who obstructed 
business for a period of eight days, and finally compelled the 
House to postpone the consideration of the bill until the next 
session of Congress. 

It seems entirely reasonable that the amount paid by the 
loyal States shall be refunded, or that the balance due from 
the Southern States shall be collected. The opponents of the 
Senate bill are opposed to both, propositions. 

The delays and difficulties attending the collection of a direct 
tax from real estate are such, that it seems entirely improbable 
that another direct tax law will ever be enacted. 

On July I, 1862, an act to provide internal revenue to sup¬ 
port the government and to pay interest on the public debt 
was passed. It was the first of the series of laws creating the 
present internal-revenue system. This act was followed by the 
acts of March 3, 1863; March 7, 1864; June 30, 1864; and 
March 3, 1865. 

There probably never was in any country a more far-reach¬ 
ing system of taxation devised—every occupation, business, or 


INTERNAL REVENUE. 


233 


industry, every source of income, every article owned and used 
for luxurious enjoyment; all railroads, canals, steamboats, ex. 
press companies; all banks, bankers, brokers, manufacturers 
jobbers, merchants; all wholesale and retail dealers, and all 
places of amusement and public entertainment, were required 
to contribute their share to the great fund necessary to save 
the Union. Thousands of manufactured articles which entered 
into the daily consumption of the people were taxed. Here 
and there the law provided for small exemptions in the interest 
of the poor ; but the whole plan and framework of the system 
contemplated raising a large revenue from every individual in 
the land by a tax upon him directly or upon articles which he 
required for daily use. The men who planned and enacted 
these laws were elected by the people, and represented the 
public sentiment of the country; the era was one of patriotism 
and heroism, and this extraordinary system of taxation was 
not only acquiesced in, but indorsed by the people, and the 
payment yearly of the enormous sums of revenue which were 
collected is one of the strongest possible evidences of the de¬ 
votion of the people to the cause of the Union. 

The receipts from internal-revenue taxation rose from forty 
one million dollars in 1863, to more than three hundred and 
ten million dollars in 1866. The following table will be of 
interest: 

Internal Revenue Collections, July ist, 1862, to June 30TH, 1887. 

Total from distilled spirits, including special taxes of 


dealers in the same. i>258,570,743 

Total from tobacco and cigars. 747,981,410 

Total from fermented liquors. 257,946,098 

Bank circulation (other than National). 5,518,066 

Penalties and forfeitures. 11,992,904 

Manufactures and products. 425,944,100 

Gross receipts. 55,924,678 

Sales. 37,588,907 

Special taxes not included above. 85,437,647 

Incomes. 346,967>388 

Legacies. 8,883,969 

Successions. 5.911.679 

Special taxes from occupations. 8,964,869 















234 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Bank capital and deposits. 65,056,539 

Adhesive stamps upon proprietary medicines,matches,etc. 209,717,217 

Miscellaneous items. 36,064,456 

Oleomargarine and special taxes on dealers therein. 723,948 

$3,569,174,618 

From the direct tax. 15,139,981 

From the National banks on capital, circulation, and de¬ 
posits. 132,592.753 

Total. $3,716,907,352 

Thus it will be seen that the receipts of revenue from these 
laws, called into being by the exigencies of the Civil War, 
have been during a period of twenty-five years more than 
three billion seven hundred million dollars, and that $2,264,- 
498,241 were collected from distilled spirits, tobacco and cigars, 
and malt liquors—articles of indulgence, the purchase of which 
(and therefore the payment of the tax) might have been avoided 
at the pleasure of the tax-payer. 

While it is true that in 1791, and again in 1813, laws were 
enacted levying internal taxes upon distilled spirits, carriages, 
snuff, refined sugars, salt, auction sales, distilleries, licenses for 
retailing wines and spirits, bills of exchange, bank notes, prom¬ 
issory notes, etc., etc., the taxes were low and the amount of 
revenue received was small, and but few officers were employed ; 
and the laws were continued only a few years. So in point of 
fact this broad and comprehensive system of taxation was new 
and untried. Its extraordinary success has vindicated the wis¬ 
dom and the capacity of the Republican law-makers who 
placed these acts upon the statute-books. This new system 
of taxation was in many respects experimental, both as to the 
laws and the manner of their enforcement. As an illustration 
of this, it may be cited that the tax on distilled spirits was first 
fixed at 20 cents per gallon, and was afterwards changed to 60 
cents, $1.50, $2; from which it has been reduced to 90 cents 
per gallon, at which it now stands. 

The internal-revenue system was made a special study, and 
it is to the credit of the Republican party that it was brought 
to the highest degree of perfection and efficiency. During the 
nine years preceding the inauguration of President Cleveland, 










INTERNAL REVENUE. 


235 


more than eleven hundred millions of internal revenue were 
collected without the loss of one dollar by the defalcation of 
an internal-revenue officer, and about fifty million dollars were 
disbursed for salaries and expenses in connection with this 
service without loss by defalcation. Such a record is extra¬ 
ordinary and exceptional in the history of any revenue service, 
and fully certifies to the integrity and efficiency of the corps of 
internal-revenue officers. 

This state of efficiency was not accidental, but was the 
result of most careful and painstaking training of the official 
force. Periodically every officer in the service was examined as 
to his knowledge and efficiency, and fully instructed by compe¬ 
tent agents. The accounts of the collectors were subjected to 
quarterly examinations, and their correctness verified by a c oun 
of the money and stamps on hand, and a high standard of excel¬ 
lence was insisted upon in connection with all clerical work. As 
a consequence the business of the government was conducted in 
the most methodical manner, and in a style equal if not supe¬ 
rior to that of the best private business houses. The Demo¬ 
cratic cry of “Turn the rascals out” did not apply to the 
internal-revenue service. The official force was honest, capa¬ 
ble, and faithful; and while the collectors and most of their 
subordinates have been removed, it was because they were 
Republicans, and not because they were wanting in any of the 
requirements which go to make up an efficient and trustworthy 
public service. 

As soon as the war was over Congress took up the ques¬ 
tion of reducing internal taxes, and a number ot acts were 
passed from time to time repealing and reducing taxes, those 
which were most objectionable and burdensome being taken 
off first. 

These repealing and reducing acts bear date July 13, 1866; 
March 2, 1867; Februarj^ 3, 1868; March 31, 1868; July 20, 
1868; July 14, 1870; and June 6, 1872. By these acts reduc¬ 
tions were made (taking as a basis the highest amount collected 
from each source) as follows: 


236 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Internal-revenue Reductions. 


Manufactures and products.$I33>579.I09 

Gross receipts. 11,262,430 

Sales. 8,837,395 

Special taxes, not including spirits and tobacco. 14,144,418 

Incomes. 72,982,159 

Legacies and successions. 3,091,825 

Articles of luxury kept for use—i.e., pianos, yachts, etc. 2,116,674 

Slaughtered animals. 1,291,571 

Passports. . 3i»i49 

Reduction of stamp tax on notes, etc. 366,722 

Reduction tax on tobacco. 5,646,941 

Reduction on stamp taxes. 10,040,476 

Reduction on borrowed capital of banks and certain deposits. 873,111 


$264,263,980 

Act March i, 1879, reduction on tobacco. 9,905,736 

Act May 28, 1880, stamp-tax, rectifiers, and interest on tax on spirits, 1,789,827 

Act of March 3, 1883, reduction on tobacco, snuff, and 

cigars. $25,409,551 

Repeal of stamp-tax on checks, patent medicines, and 

matches. 8,139,218 

Repeal of tax on capital and deposits, State banks, 

and bankers. 5,249,173 

Repeal of tax on capital and deposits of National banks 5,959,702 

- 44,757.644 

Total reduction.$320,717,187 


Eight of the foregoing acts reducing taxation, and which 
took off taxes to the amount of $309,060,624, were passed by 
Republican majorities in the House of Representatives. Since 
March 4, 1875, to the present time the Democratic party has 
had control of the House of Representatives except for two 
years; during the twelve years of Democratic majorities but 
two acts have been passed reducing internal taxation, those of 
March i, 1879, and May 28, 1880, effecting a reduction of 
$11,696,563. These acts were supported by Republicans in 
Congress and met the approval of the Republican administra¬ 
tion. In fact this whole reduction has been secured to the 
people by the action of the Republican party. 

It is conceded on every hand that the Treasury receipts are 
greatly in excess of the needs of the government. 























INTERNAL REVENUE. 


237 


The present administration during the past three years has 
been at its wits’ end to know what disposition to make of the 
steadily growing surplus. Several millions have been deposited 
with National Banks for no better reasons than that it was not 
needed by the government, and this disposition of it would be 
a relief to business interests, while other millions have been 
used for the purchase of bonds at a large premium. The 
demand of the hour is that there shall be a reduction of taxa- 
tion. Seven months ago the President in his message to 
Congress pointed out the danger of the accumulation of great 
and needless sums in the Treasury, and urged immediate action 
upon Congress to pass laws reducing taxation. He, however, 
confined his recommendation to a reduction of the receipts 
from the tariff by lowering the rates of duties. 

It was well known that legislation of this character upon 
the lines recommended by the President would be resisted by 
the Republican party, and it might have been confidently pre¬ 
dicted that such a measure, if not actually defeated, would not 
become a law for a number of months ; besides, it is practicably 
impossible to determine in advance whether a reduction of the 
rates of duties on a number of leading articles will result in a 
reduction of revenue, as lowering the rates may stimulate im¬ 
portation and actually increase receipts. A number of bills 
were introduced early in the session for the repeal of the 
tobacco tax and the tax upon distilled spirits. It has been 
impossible, however, to bring the House of Representatives to 
a vote upon any of the separate measures for reducing internal- 
revenue taxation. 

For the fiscal year ending June 30,1887, the receipts from to¬ 
bacco, snuff, cigars, and special taxes on manufacturers, dealers, 
etc., were $30,108,067. If these taxes were abolished, there 
would be no mistake as to the reduction of the Treasury receipts 
to that extent, and there seems no just ground upon which this 
tax can longer be maintained. The manufacturers of cigars 
prefer that a nominal tax shall be levied upon their productions 
as a means of protecting their brands. This might be done 
with propriety, but the special taxes upon the 509,361 manufac¬ 
turers and dealers in tobacco should be abolished at once. This 


238 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


would relieve a mighty army of people from the payment of 
these taxes, and from the pains and penalties liable to be in¬ 
flicted upon them for trivial violations of law without fraudulent 
intent. 

The position of the Republicans on this question is in har¬ 
mony with the policy of the government from its foundation. 
Internal-revenue taxation has never been resorted to except to 
relieve the burdens of war, arid has always been repealed as 
soon as such demands were satisfied. It is the only “ war tax” 
remaining on our statute books to-day, and as such should be 
dispensed with. 

There is no question but what a proposition pure and sim¬ 
ple to repeal these taxes if presented to Congress would pass 
both Houses by overwhelming majorities. The fault for a 
failure to dismiss them lies with the Democratic managers of 
the House of Representatives. A bill to take the tax off dis¬ 
tilled spirits used in the arts and manufactures would also un¬ 
doubtedly meet the approval of both Houses, and would re¬ 
duce receipts at least eight millions. These two items would 
amount to over $38,000,000 of a reduction, and would be a 
substantial beginning of the work of reducing the receipts 
of the government to its needs for an economical administra¬ 
tion of public affairs. 

It must be remembered that under the Constitution the 
power to originate revenue measures is conferred upon the 
House of Representatives. The Senate may not properly take 
up subjects of taxation until a bill involving such a question 
has passed the House, and has been sent to the Senate for its 
action. Therefore, the responsibility for a failure to reduce 
taxes during the administration of President Cleveland rests 
upon the Democratic party. As has been shown, while the 
Republican party held the Presidential office and influenced 
legislation, internal taxes were reduced more than 320 millions 
of dollars, while during the past three years of Democratic con¬ 
trol of the Executive office and of the House of Representatives 
that party has not reduced internal taxes one cent. 

The enactment and enforcement of the internal-revenue 
laws by the Republican party, were for many years the objec- 


INTERNAL REVENUE. 


239 


tive point of attack of Democrats in many States, and so 
violent was the opposition of leading public men to these laws, 
that whole communities were encouraged to engage in the 
business of defrauding the government and in resisting its 
officers. This hostility and opposition became so formidable 
in some of the Southern States that it required the organiza¬ 
tion of large parties of armed men to overcome resistance and 
suppress fraud. The action of the Democratic leaders since the 
inauguration of President Cleveland, in regard to this service 
and its laws, is strongly at variance with their course during 
Republican control. 

Now the internal-revenue service supplies them with many 
heretofore coveted offices, and being in possession of them, the 
taxes which were denounced as odious are not now regarded 
with such horror. A great change has come over the spirit of 
their dreams. They no longer hold up to public contempt the 
hated internal-revenue officer. This person is now a Democrat, 
and of course must be regarded as a gentleman ; and if these 
taxes are repealed, the occupation of this efficient Democratic 
worker will be gone. Hence the present splendid exhibition of 
“how not to do itin the way of repealing internal taxation. 

Since the foregoing lines were written the National Con¬ 
vention of the Republican party has performed its work : Gen¬ 
eral Benjamin Harrison of Indiana and Hon. Levi P. Morton 
have been chosen as candidates for President and Vice-Presi¬ 
dent ; these able and distinguished citizens worthily represent 
the lofty aspirations, the grand principles, and glorious achive- 
ments of the party whose candidates they are. 

The platform adopted by the Convention presents in plain 
and unmistakable terms the issues involved in the present 
political contest. The Republican party demands the preserva¬ 
tion and continuance of the protective system of tariff legisla¬ 
tion as a means of developing the resources of our own country, 
and of maintaining such a scale of wages to our whole people 
as will secure to Americans better houses and home comforts, 
better advantages and prospects for their children, and abundant¬ 
ly greater reasons for contentment and happiness, than is possible 
for the people of the old world. The party demands that the ex- 


240 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


cessive revenues of the government shall be immediately re¬ 
duced, and as a beginning insists that the tobacco tax and the tax 
upon distilled spirits used in arts and manufactures shall at 
once be repealed. It will be for the people to say whether the 
party manifestly disregardful of the interests of a tax-paying 
public shall be retained in power and whether it will not be 
wise to restore the reins of government to that party which had 
the wisdom to frame great tax laws when they were required, 
and has proven its ability and willingness to lighten the burdens 
of taxation when the revenues were excessive. 


A PROTECTIVE TARIFF. 


By Hon. William McKinley, Jr., M.C. from Ohio. 

The general question of the tariff involves higher considera¬ 
tions than we are wont to bring to its discussion. 

Our political system differs from all others. Universal citi¬ 
zenship and equal suffrage constitute the foundation upon 
which our Republic rests, and the real and wider question, 
therefore, of the tariff is. What will best maintain our industrial 
pursuits and labor conditions suitable to the high political 
duties of our people and the exalted trusts which are confided 
to them ? That is the real question in its comprehensive view. 
It touches the health and progress of the Republic, for it 
touches the condition, moral, physical, and intellectual, of the 
citizen from whom it must draw its force and character and 
strength. You cannot affect the citizen either for good or ill 
without the Nation feeling it. The relation of the people to 
the government and the government to the people is so close 
and intimate, that you cannot touch the one without its being 
quickly felt by the other. 

So long as American protective tariffs operate to foster and 
cherish American enterprises which are enabled to provide 
profitable employment to American labor, so long should 
American protective tariffs be upheld and defended, whether 
assaulted from influences at home or abroad. We cannot be 
healthy and vigorous as a nation, we cannot successfully lead 
in the race of freedom and progress, if the source of power— 
the people—is discontented, ill fed, ill paid, and without the 
comforts and deprived of the healthful conditions which should 
be enjoyed by political equals. 

It is not a question simply of whether we shall clothe our¬ 
selves in cloths manufactured from American wools or in 

241 


242 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


cloths fabricated from Australian wools, but how will the 
Nation at large and the individual citizen be affected by the 
policy which makes the latter necessary, if not inevitable. 

It is not the narrow question of the cost of the clothes we 
wear, or the food we eat, or the lumber which gives shelter to 
our homes, but what will be the effect of such alleged reduced 
cost, and 'all which must follow it, upon our citizenship, and 
ultimately its influence upon the strength and character of our 
institutions. The government, which derives all its powers 
from the people, must be mindful of their interests, considerate 
of their character, and in every way possible favor their prepara¬ 
tion for the responsibilities with which they are charged. It is 
a broader question than the price of the foreign or the domestic 
product; and while the latter may in some instances cost a 
little more than the former, it is of little significance when 
measured by the comforts and advantages which might be 
afforded the masses of our country, and which cannot be secured 
without the maintenance of an American policy. 

Free trade with every other nation of the world means to 
us either the substantial abandonment of many of the chief 
industries of the country, or, if they are to survive, it means 
equal cost in the growth and manufacture of competing prod¬ 
ucts. One of the two things must inevitably result from free 
trade or a purely revenue tariff. 

In some departments of industry the cost of production in 
this country is greater than that in any other, and to remove 
the protection which we secure by our tariffs will either sur¬ 
render our markets in those departments to our foreign com¬ 
petitors or, if we would hold them, we must diminish the cost of 
the competing products, and that means—and there can be no 
other result—a radical reduction in the wages of our workmen. 

Our duty, therefore, is not limited to the mere question of 
dollars and cents, but it is deeper and more far-reaching. It 
involves our industrial independence and the welfare of our 
people. Comparisons cannot be made with other nations. 
This is a nation of citizens, not subjects. Whatever, therefore, 
will secure to the laboring masses their full share in the joint 
profits of capital and labor, favor the highest intelligence and 


A PROTIXTIVE TARIFF. 


243 


largest independence, should be adopted and become perma¬ 
nently a part of our national policy. 

Much idle talk is indulged in about manufacturing combines 
and monopolies in the United States, and everything is called 
a monopoly that prospers ; everybody who gets ahead in the 
world is in the minds of some people a monopolist. 

We have few manufacturing monopolists in the United 
States to-day. They cannot long exist with an unrestricted 
home competition such as we have. They feel the spur of 
competition from thirty-eight States, and extortion and monop¬ 
oly cannot survive the sharp contest among our own capitalists 
and enterprising citizens. There are some here and there; and 
yet those who shout the loudest against monopolies are usually 
found advocating a doctrine which, if carried into practical 
operation, would break down American manufactures, and give 
England the unbridled monopoly of American markets. Eng¬ 
lish monopoly does not disturb them ; it is American monopoly 
that distresses their souls. Under the cry of a “ bounty-fed 
monopoly ” they would transfer manufacturing from American 
citizens to foreign citizens. 

Would it not be better that America and American manu¬ 
facturers should have the monopoly of American consumption 
than that England should have it; and is it not to be preferred 
that the American laborer and the American mechanic should 
have the monopoly of supplying the American markets than 
that English laborers and English mechanics should have it ? 

I would that all Americans had the love of country and of 
home institutions that possessed the spirit of Washington. 
His adopted son, George Washington Parke Custis, in a letter 
to Thomas Carbery, dated April 7, 1839, relates an incident 
which well illustrates the Americanism of the Father of his 
Country. Says Custis : “In 1799, ’^vhen in command of his last 
army, in which I had the honor to bear a commission, a blue 
coat with embroidery was the arrangement made by a board 
of general officers as the costume of the chief. Washington 
merely asked, ‘Can this affair be done in the United States?’ 
On being told ‘ No,’ that the embroidery must be executed in 
Europe, the venerable chief declined the whole affair instanter.” 


244 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


The manufacturers of this country, as a rule, are not deserv¬ 
ing of being characterized as monopolists. They have no 
princely fortunes ; in general they have no independent means. 
Their all is in the brick and mortar of their establishments, 
in the machinery, in the organization, in their trade : and how 
many of them to-day would be willing to sell out at first cost, 
and below first cost, if they could do it ? He who would 
break down the manufacturers of this country strikes a fatal 
blow at labor. It is labor that “protection ” protects. 

Over three hundred millions of dollars must be raised 
annually from some source to meet the expenditures and obli¬ 
gations of the government. 

This sum must be secured either by direct taxation or by 
duties upon imports. The former system has never been 
favored by our people, and has been resorted to only in case 
of war and great public necessity. It has never been held as a 
permanent system for raising revenue, but only as a temporary 
expedient to meet immediate and pressing exigencies for which 
the prevailing system of taxation was found for the time inade¬ 
quate. It has been the accepted policy from the formation of 
the government to raise our current and necessary revenues 
from import duties. The only reason for a surplus in the 
Treasury to-day is because we continue the dual system of taxa¬ 
tion and still retain a part of the internal-revenue or direct 
system of taxation which grew out of the necessities of the war. 
If this were abandoned we would be able to raise the requisite 
revenue from customs sources, and this taxation would be 
lightly felt and prove less onerous than any other system. 

It is only a question of time, if our surplus continues, when 
the internal-revenue system will be wholly abolished and our 
revenue be derived exclusively from duties upon imports. 
It can well be left with the States to tax spirits and receive the 
revenues derived therefrom. Whenever it becomes apparent 
to the public that the one or the other must yield, the internal- 
revenue tax will be abolished. 

The division between the Republican and Democratic part¬ 
ies is not about the raising of revenues from import duties, but 
upon the class of articles on which these duties shall be im- 















A PROTECTIVE TARIFF. 


245 


posed. The Republican idea is to place the duties upon 
foreign articles imported which compete with those produced 
here, and with the exception of luxuries to permit the non¬ 
competing articles to enter our custom-houses free. The 
Democratic idea is a revenue tariff purely, by which duties 
are imposed upon foreign articles which do not compete with 
articles produced at home. This results in there being a selec¬ 
tion made from the list of imported articles of those which are 
necessary to the w^ants of our people, and which we can procure 
only from the foreign supply, and placing upon them the duty, 
while permitting the articles which come from abroad in com¬ 
petition with our domestic production to come in free. The 
one makes the competing foreign product bear the burden, 
the other the non-competing: and herein is found the real 
division between the two great parties upon this economic 
question. 

If the duty is placed upon the non-competing foreign prod¬ 
uct, that duty is manifestly paid by the American consumer, 
for it is just so much added to the cost, there being no compe¬ 
tition in this country to reduce or regulate the price. 

But if the duty is paid upon the competing product which 
cornes from abroad, that duty is seldom, if ever, paid by the 
consumer, but by the foreign producer, because for the sake of 
getting into this market to sell alongside the domestic produc¬ 
tion he accepts diminished profits. 

To secure larger revenue from lower duties necessitates 
largely increased importations; and if these compete with 
domestic products, the latter must be diminished or find other 
and distant and, I may say, impossible markets, or get out of 
the way altogether. 

Any tax levied upon a foreign product which is a necessity 
to our people, and which we cannot fully supply, will produce 
revenue in amount only measured by our necessities and ability 
to buy. In a word, foreign productions not competing with 
home productions are the proper subjects for taxation under a 
revenue tariff, and in case these do not furnish the requisite 
revenue a low duty is put upon the foreign product competing 
with the domestic one—low enough to encourage and stimulate 


246 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


importations, and low enough to break down eventually domestic 
competition. 

As I have said before, a protective tariff imposes the duty 
upon the competing foreign product; it makes it bear the 
burden or duty. It says to our foreign competitor, If you 
want to bring your merchandise here, your farm products here, 
your coal and iron ore, your wool, your salt, your pottery, your 
glass, your cottons and woolens, and sell alongside of our 
producers in our markets, we will make your product bear a 
duty; in effect, pay for the privilege of doing it. Our kind of 
a tariff makes the competing foreign article carry the burden, 
draw the load, supply the revenue; and in performing this 
essential office it encourages at the same time our own in¬ 
dustries and protects our own people in their chosen employ¬ 
ments. That is the mission and purpose of a protective tariff. 

We have free trade among ourselves throughout thirty-eight 
States and the Territories and among sixty millions of people. 
Absolute freedom of exchange within our own borders and 
among our own citizens is the law of the Republic. Reason¬ 
able taxation and restraint upon those without is the dictate of 
enlightened patriotism and the doctrine of the Republican 
party. Free trade in the United States is founded upon a com¬ 
munity of equalities and reciprocities. It is like the unre¬ 
strained freedom and reciprocal relations and obligations of a 
family. Here we are one country, one language, one allegiance, 
one standard of citizenship, one flag, one Constitution, one 
nation, one destiny. It is otherwise with foreign nations, each 
a separate organism, a distinct and independent political 
society organized for its own, to protect its own, and work out 
its own destiny. We deny to those foreign nations free trade 
with us upon equal terms with our own producers. The foreign 
producer has no right or claim to equality with our own. He 
is not amenable to our laws. There are resting upon him 
none of the obligations of citizenship. He pays no taxes. He 
performs no civil duties ; is subject to no demands for military 
service. He is exempt from State, county, and municipal 
obligations. He contributes nothing to the support, the prog¬ 
ress, and glory of the Nation. Why should he enjoy unre- 


A PROTECTIVE TARIFF. 


247 


strained equal privileges and profits in our markets with our 
producers, our labor, and our tax-payers? We put a burden 
upon his productions, we discriminate against his merchandise, 
because he is alien to us and our interests, and we do it to pro¬ 
tect our own, defend our own, preserve our own, who are always 
with us in adversity and prosperity, in sympathy and purpose, 
and, if necessary, in sacrifice. That is the principle which 
governs us. I submit it is a patriotic and righteous one. In 
our own country, each citizen competing with the other in free 
and unresentful rivalry, while with the rest of the world all are 
united and together in resisting outside competition as we would 
foreign interference. 

Free foreign trade admits the foreigner to equal privileges 
with our own citizens. It invites the product of foreign cheap 
labor to this market in competition with the domestic product, 
representing higher and better-paid labor. It results in giving 
our money, our manufactures, and our markets to other 
nations, to the injury of our labor, our tradespeople, and our 
farmers. Protection keeps money, markets, and manufactures 
at home for the benefit of our own people. 

It is scarcely worth while to more than state the proposition 
that taxation upon a foreign competing product is more easily 
paid and is less burdensome than taxation upon the non-com¬ 
peting product. In the latter it is always added to the foreign 
cost, and therefore paid by the consumer, while in the former, 
where the duty is upon the competing product, it is largely 
paid in the form of diminished profits to the foreign producer. 
It would be burdensome beyond endurance to collect our taxes 
from the products, professions, and labor of our own people. 

The value of the protective system consists in the encour¬ 
agement it gives to American enterprise, the diversification of 
industries, and the increased demand for labor. 

It enables the American manufacturer to pay better wages 
and supply steadier employment to labor, for under the free- 
trade or revenue-tariff system our labor and, indeed, the whole 
cost of production must of necessity be brought down to the 
prevailing cost of production of competing countries. The fun¬ 
damental argument of protection concerns the benefits it brings 


248 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


to labor. That it enables the manufacturer to pay more and 
better wages than are paid for like services anywhere else will 
not be disputed. There is no branch of labor in the United 
States which does not receive higher rewards than in any other 
country. Our laborers are not only the best paid, the best 
clothed, and the best educated in the world, but they have 
more comforts, more independence, more moral force and 
political power, more savings, and are better contented than 
their rivals anywhere else. 

Mr. Hewitt of New York, on January 26, 1870, in a letter 
addressed to Mr. Jay Gould, among other things, said : “ Free 
trade will simply reduce the wages of labor to the foreign 
standard, and, as a matter of course, the ability of a laborer to 
consume will be reduced, and serious loss will be inflicted on 
commerce, general industry,” etc. 

In the discussion of the benefits of free trade or a revenue 
tariff as contrasted with protection, the friends and advocates 
of the former are in the habit of representing the tariff between 
1846 and i860 under the revenue tariff law of 1846, commonly 
known as the Robert J. Walker tariff, as giving the highest 
evidence of prosperity and securing the highest profit to in¬ 
vestors, and it is urged that greater possibilities, individual and 
national, were secured under that system. 

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, in his speech 
made in the present (Fiftieth) Congress, May 19th, dwelt at 
length upon this period as the exceptionally prosperous one in 
our history, and accredited it to the revenue-tariff legislation 
prevailing during that era. With such a claim from so high an 
authority, it is worth while to ascertain what, in fact, was our 
condition during this period. The low tariff of 1846 commenced 
its havoc upon the business of the country even before 1850. 
In December, 1849, the firm of Cooper & Hewitt speaks of 
the condition of the iron trade in the following language: 

“And first, what is the real condition of the domestic iron 
trade? Is it actually depressed and threatened with ruin, or 
does all the outcry proceed from men who, having realized 
“ princely fortunes ” annually, are now clamorous because their 
profits are reduced to reasonable limits, or from another class, 


A PROTECTIVE TARIFF. 


249 


who, having erected works in improper locations, desire not so 
much to make iron cheaply as to build up villages and speculate 
in real estate? Undoubtedly to some extent there are such 
cases ; . . . but as to the great fact, that the great majority of 
establishments judiciously located and managed with proper 
skill and economy have been compelled to suspend work 
throughout the land for want of remunerating work, there can¬ 
not be a shadow of a doubt.” 

On the 2d of December, 1851, President Fillmore, in his 
message advising Congress of the condition of the country, as 
he was required to do under the Constitution, said: 

The values of our domestic exports for the last fiscal year, 
as compared with those of the previous year, exhibit an increase 
of $43,646,322. At first view this condition of our trade with 
foreign nations would seem to present the most flattering hope 
of its future prosperity. An examination of the details of our 
exports, however, will show that the increased value of our 
exports for the last fiscal year is to be found in the high price 
of cotton which prevailed during the last half of that year, 
which price has since declined about one half. The value of 
our exports of breadstuffs and provisions, which it was supposed 
the incentive of a low tariff and large importations from abroad 
would have greatly augmented, has fallen from $68,701,921 in 
1847 to $26,051,373 in 1850, and to $21,848,653 in 1851, with a 
strong probability, amounting almost to a certainty, of a still 
further reduction in the current year. The aggregate values of 
rice exported during the last fiscal year as compared with the 
previous year also exhibit a decrease amounting to $460,917, 
which, with a decline in the values of the exports of tobacco 
for the same period, make an aggregate decrease in these two 
articles of $1,156,751. The policy which dictated a low rate of 
duties on foreign merchandise, it was thought by those who 
promoted and established it, would tend to benefit the farming 
population of this country by increasing the demand and rais¬ 
ing the price of agricultural products in foreign markets. 

“ The foregoing facts, however, seem to show incontestably 
that no such result has followed the adoption of this policy.” 


250 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Again, one year later, in his message to Congress, President 
Fillmore stated the following to be the condition of the country: 

“ Without repeating the arguments contained in my former 
message in favor of discriminating protective duties, I deem it 
my duty to call your attention to one or two other considerations 
affecting this subject. The first is the effect of large importa¬ 
tions of foreign goods upon our currency. Most of the gold of 
California, as fast as it is coined, finds its way directly to Europe, 
in payment for goods purchased. In the second place, as our 
manufacturing establishments are broken down by competition 
with foreigners, the capital invested in them is lost, thousands 
of honest and industrious citizens are thrown out of employ¬ 
ment, and the farmer, to that extent, is deprived of a home 
market for the sale of his surplus produce. In the third place, 
the destruction of our manufactures leaves the foreigner with¬ 
out competition in our market, and he consequently raises the 
price of the articles sent here for sale, as is now seen in the in¬ 
creased cost of iron imported from England. The prosperity 
and wealth of every nation must depend upon its productive 
industry. The farmer is stimulated to exertion by finding a 
ready market for his surplus products, and benefited by being 
able to exchange them without loss of time or expense of 
transportation for the manufactures which his comfort or con¬ 
venience requires. This is always done to the best advantage 
where a portion of the community in which he lives is engaged 
in other pursuits. But most manufactures require an amount 
of capital and a practical skill which cannot be commanded 
unless they be protected for a time from ruinous competition 
from abroad.” 

Mr. Buchanan, on December 8, 1857, his message to 
Congress, used the following language: 

“ The earth has yielded her fruits abundantly, and has bounti¬ 
fully rewarded the toil of the husbandman. Our great staples 
have commanded high prices, and, up till within a brief period, 
our manufacturing, mineral, and mechanical occupations have 
largely partaken of the general prosperity. We have possessed 
all the elements of material wealth in rich abundunce, and yet, 
notwithstanding all these advantages, our country in its mone- 


A PROTECTIVE TA.RIFF. 


251 


tary interests is at the present moment in a deplorable condi¬ 
tion. In the midst of unsurpassed plenty in all the productions 
and in all the elements of national wealth, we find our manu¬ 
factures suspended, our public works retarded, our private en¬ 
terprises of different kinds abandoned, and thousands of useful 
laborers thrown out of employment and reduced to want. The 
revenue of the government, which is chiefly derived from duties 
on imports from abroad, has been greatly reduced, while the 
appropriations made by Congress at its last session for the cur¬ 
rent fiscal year are very large in amount.” 

Again, in his next message, he says: “No statesman would 
advise that we should go on increasing the national debt to 
meet the ordinary expenses of the government. This would 
be a most ruinous policy. In case of war our credit must be 
our chief resource, at least for the first year, and this would be 
greatly impaired by having contracted a large debt in time of 
peace. It is our true policy to increase our revenue so as to 
equal our expenditures. It would be ruinous to continue to 
borrow. Besides, it may be proper to observe that the inci¬ 
dental protection thus afforded by a revenue tariff would at 
the present moment, to some extent, increase the confidence 
of the manufacturing interests and give a fresh impulse to our 
reviving business. To this surely no person would object.” 

In December, i860, the last month of the last year of this 
free-trade period. Congress was called upon to authorize the 
issue of treasury notes, redeemable at the expiration of one 
year, to supply the government with money to meet its current 
expenses. 

This was after thirteen years of trial of the revenue-tariff 
policy of the Democratic party. Ten million nine hundred 
thousand dollars of these treasury notes were sold. About 
nine million of them were sold at a discount of from 10 to 12 
per cent, and the remainder at a discount of from 6 to gi 
per cent. On the 8th of February, 1861, when we were still 
within this revenue-tariff period. Congress authorized the sale of 
tw'enty-five million dollars of bonds at 6 per cent interest, pay¬ 
able at the end of twenty years. Only $18,000,000 of them 
were sold in the market at 891I0 cents on the dollar. So bad 


252 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


had the credit of the government become that in January, 
1861, the Secretary of the Treasury suggested to Congress, as 
a last resort, that the several States of the Union be asked, as 
security for the repayment of any money the government 
might find it necessary to borrow, to pledge to the government 
the deposits received by them under the act for the distribution 
of the surplus revenues of 1836. The Secretary believed that a 
loan contracted on such a basis of security, adding to the plighted 
faith of the United States that of the individual States, could 
hardly fail to be acceptable to the lenders of money. 

Thus was the United States driven by the Democratic rev¬ 
enue policy, such as is now sought to be engrafted upon our 
legislation, to the very brink of financial ruin, with neither 
money nor credit. Instead of the era from ’50 to ’60 present¬ 
ing a reason for a return to the policy then prevailing, it fur¬ 
nishes the very highest reason for avoiding it. 

Under the protective system inaugurated in ’61, and which 
has continued from that time until now, we have witnessed the 
highest prosperity among our own citizens and in the Nation at 
large. The census of 1880 discloses the growth of the country 
during the latter period, and the high credit attained by the 
government is the world’s wonder. No other nation of the 
world has such credit as ours. Our Fours, due in 1907, are 
sold at a premium of 127J. Our Fours-and-a-half, due in 
1891, sell at the premium of I07|-, while the Treasury itself has, 
instead of a deficit, a surplus, and, instead of selling treasury 
notes and bonds at a discount, the government is paying large 
premiums upon its obligations not yet matured, from its re¬ 
dundant revenues. 

Intimately associated with the idea of a protective tariff is 
the manner of levying that tariff. All know the difference be¬ 
tween the ad valorem system and the specific mode of levying 
duties. One is based upon value, the other upon quantity. 
One is based upon the foreign value, difficult of ascertainment, 
resting in the judgment of experts, all the time offering a 
bribe to undervaluation ; the other rests upon quantity, fixed 
and well known the world over, always determinable and always 
uniform. The one is assessed by the yard-stick, the ton, and 


A PROTECTIVE TARIFF. 


253 


the pound-weight of commerce, and the other is assessed by 
the foreign value, fixed by the foreign importer or his agent in 
New York or elsewhere—fixed by the producer, fixed by any¬ 
body, at any price, to escape the payment of full duties. Why, 
the valuation under the ad valorem system is not even uniform 
throughout the United States. 

It is a system that has been condemned by all the leading 
nations of the world. There is not a leading nation that ad¬ 
heres to any considerable extent to the ad valorem rates of duty 
upon articles imported into its borders ; and England has aban¬ 
doned all ad valorem duties except one, for the very reason 
that there can be no honest administration of the revenue laws 
so long as the value is fixed thousands of miles away from the 
the point of production and impossible of verification at home. 

Henry Clay said fifty years ago: “ Let me fix the value of 
the foreign merchandise, and I do not care what your duty is.” 

Mr. Secretary Manning, in his very able report made to the 
last Congress, has gone over the entire question, and he pub¬ 
lishes in a volume the opinions of the experts of the Treasury, 
the collectors, the naval officers, the special agents of the De¬ 
partment, all of them declaring that there is nothing left for 
the American Government to do but to abolish the ad valorem 
system and adopt the specific in the interest of the honest col¬ 
lection of the revenue and for the safety and security of repu¬ 
table merchants. And the Secretary himself says, in language 
too strong and plain to be misunderstood, that it is the’duty of 
Congress to abandon the ad valorem and establish specific 
duties. 

Not alone in the United States are the benefits which fol¬ 
low a protective tariff appreciated. 

The working people of England find the competition with 
countries employing cheaper labor too oppressive to bear 
longer, and are demanding in the interest of themselves and 
families to be saved from the further degradation it will entail. 
It is not American competition they dread; it is the competi¬ 
tion of France, Germany, and Belgium—countries whose labor 
is even more poorly paid than the labor of England. They 
have come to appreciate at last that nothing but tariffs which 


■254 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


are defensive in their character will save them from utter ruin 
and destitution. We shall be in precisely the same situation 
if the Mills bill of 1888 becomes a law. Our competition is 
with all the world, for no labor is so well paid as ours, and 
being the highest paid labor invites the sharpest competition 
from the lowest. We will have no objection to free trade 
when all the competing nations shall bring the level of their 
labor up to ours; when they shall accept our standard ; when 
they shall regard the toiler as a man and not a slave; but we 
will never consent while we have votes and the power to pre¬ 
vent the dragging down of our labor to that of the European 
standard. Let them elevate theirs; let them bring theirs up 
to our level, and we will then have no contention about revenue 
or protective tariffs. We will meet them in open field, in home 
and neutral markets, upon equal footing, and the fittest will 
survive. This is no time to seriously think of changing our 
policy. The best sentiment, the practical judgment of man¬ 
kind, is turning to it. 

Sir Charles Tupper said, a year ago, in the Canadian House 
of Commons: 

“No person who has carefully watched the progress of 
public events and public opinion can fail to know that a very 
great and marked change has taken place in all countries, I 
may say, in relation to this question [protection]. ... In Eng¬ 
land, where it was a heresy to intimate anything of that kind 
a few years ago, even at the period to which I am referring, a 
great and marked change in public opinion has taken place. 
Professor Sidgewick, a learned Fellow of Trinity College, 
Cambridge, and professor of moral philosophy in that great 
university, and the gentleman who read at the meeting of the 
British Association in 1886 a paper on political economy, has 
published a work in which opinions that would have been 
denounced as utterly fallacious and heretical at that time have 
been boldly propounded as the soundest and truest principles 
of political economy. . . . Statesmen of the first rank, men 
occupying high and commanding positions in public affairs in 
England, have unhesitatingly committed themselves to the 


A PROTECTIVE TARIFF. 255 

strongest opinion in favor of fair protection to British in¬ 
dustry.” 

Why, even Canada, a dependency of free-trade England, is 
too wise to favor the false doctrines of her mother, and has 
rejected her teachings, and to-day is prosperous under a protec¬ 
tive system, which she in the main borrowed from us. I wish 
every citizen might read the budget speech of the minister of 
finance in Canada, and contrast it with the arguments of the 
misguided “ revenue reformers” in the Fiftieth Congress. On 
the 12th of May, 1887, in the Commons, Sir Charles Tupper, 
in speaking of a previous period in the history of Canada under 
free trade, said : “ When the languishing industries of Canada 

embarrassed the finance minister of that day, when, instead of 
large surplus, large deficits succeeded year after year, the 
opposition urged upon that honorable gentleman that he 
should endeavor to give increased protection to the industries 
of Canada, which would prevent them from thus languishing 
and being destroyed. We were not successful—I will not say 
in leading the honorable gentleman himself to the conclusion 
that that would be a sound policy, for I have some reason to 
believe that he had many a misgiving on that question—but at 
all events we were not able to change the policy of the gentle¬ 
man who then ruled the destinies of Canada. As is well 
known, that became the great issue at the subsequent general 
election of 1878, and the Conservative party being returned to 
power, pledged to promote and foster the industries of Canada 
as far as they were able, brought down a policy through the 
hands of my honored predecessor. Sir Leonard Tilley, . . . and 
I have no hesitation in saying that the success of that policy 
thus propounded and matured from time to time has been such 
as to command the support and confidence of a large portion 
of the people of this country down to the present day.” 

Under this system he proceeds to show that Canada has 
enjoyed a prosperity the like of which she never enjoyed be¬ 
fore, and then, instead of recommending a reduction of duties, 
proposes the increase of duties upon certain foreign merchan¬ 
dise, to the end that Canadian industries may be fostered 
thereby. 


256 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


The experience of this country, the experience of Canada, 
the experience of every other country demonstrates the fact 
that under a protective tariff a nation is more prosperous. Its 
people are better clothed, better fed, better housed, and better 
educated—more content and happy. And it is this condition 
of affairs that is most to be desired. 

“ The state of civilized society and resources of nations are 
the tests by which we can ascertain the tendency of the govern¬ 
ment. It is to the condition of the people in relation to their 
intercourse, their moral and physical circumstances, their com¬ 
fort and happiness, their genius and industry, that we must 
look for the proofs of a mild and free, or a cruel and despotic 
government. Where agriculture, the arts and manufactures, 
flourish, where domestic improvements have been encouraged, 
where the more useful branches of education have been exten¬ 
sively cultivated, where commerce and navigation have been 
promoted, where the civil institutions are founded on justice, 
mercy, and equality, where there is liberty of conscience and 
freedom of speech and of the press—there it is that we can find 
the demonstrations of the prosperity and happiness of a people. 
In proportion as such principles and practices have been 
adopted we estimate the wealth, power, and glory of the 
Nation.” 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


By Hon. Benj. Butterworth, M.C. from Ohio, and F. D. Mussey. 

In endeavoring to present a comprehensive statement of 
the progress, under the auspices of the Republican party, of 
internal development in the United States and a picture of its 
present industrial condition, difficulty is found in the amazing 
magnitude of the figures. 

P'or instance, in the Treasury at this time there are two 
hundred and one million dollars of gold. This weighs 519 
tons, and packed in ordinary carts, one ton to each cart, it 
would make a procession one mile long, allowing twenty feet of 
space for the movement of each cart. The statement of the 
figures may not be impressive, but the illustration makes it so. 

The subject of the internal progress of the United States 
is so vast, that an article within the limits of this must confine 
itself largely to statistical facts, figures, and results, presented 
as attractively as possible and leaving deductions to the reader. 
The subject is treated of under the main general heads of 
Agriculture, Manufactures, Railroads, Commerce, and Mining, 
including other heads under these. 

AGRICULTURE. 

According to an estimate which is doubtless too small, we 
Lave in our country a million and a half square miles of arable 
land. 

In 1850 we had about 300,0(X),000 of acres in farms, which 
number increased to nearly 600,000,000 in 1880. The number 
of farms has increased in the same time from less than 2,000,- 
000 to, in round numbers, over 4,000,000, while the value of 
the farms has increased from six thousand millions to ten thou¬ 
sand millions of dollars. At the same time the average size of 

257 


258 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


farms has decreased from 203 to 134 acres, a most encouraging 
sign. 

It is estimated by Mulhall that only about 15 per cent of 
the total area is as yet under cultivation, with an invested capi¬ 
tal of over ten thousand six hundred millions of dollars. But 
even upon this small per cent of our available arable land we 
produced almost one third of the grain of the world in 1880. 

Since that year the progress in agriculture has been as rapid 
as ever, and each year adds to the average of the stupendous 
figure it takes to tell the almost bewildering story of the agri¬ 
cultural industry of the United States. In one year Dakota 
alone added six million acres to her farming area, equal, as 
Carnegie remarks, to “ one third of all Scotland.” Mulhall’s 
statement of the grain production will illustrate the amazing 
increase in agricultural products. In 1850 the product was 
867,000,000 bushels; in i860, 1,230,000,000 bushels; while in 
1880 it had grown in round numbers to 2,700,000,000 bushels. 

To-day we raise one fourth of all the wheat-crop of the 
world, and our country is feeding mankind and furnishing all 
the peoples of the earth with food of every description; con¬ 
suming more ourselves than any other nation, we yet export 
more. The crop of wheat has increased from one hundred 
million in 1850 to near five hundred million bushels a year; 
and where we exported in i860 about thirty million dollars* 
worth, we exported in 1887 wheat and flour to the amount of 
nearly two hundred millions of dollars. England alone paid us 
for her share of the “staff of life” we furnished her one hun¬ 
dred and seventy-five million dollars. 

Last year we exported breadstuffs alone to the value of 
nearly two hundred and seven million dollars. Figures as 
striking characterize the exports of all other products of the 
agricultural industry, as will appear in dealing with them 
farther on. In connection with the decrease in acreage of farms 
is the further pleasant fact that fully three fourths of the farms 
are cultivated by their owners. This fact is one of the most 
encouraging that statistics develop, and one of the strongest 
guarantees of the safety of the State. 

In 1879 food-crops were produced on 105,097,750 acres, 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 259 

or 164,215 square miles—less than one ninth the smallest esti¬ 
mate of our arable lands. But after plentifully and luxuriously 
feeding our fifty million people we had nearly three hundred 
million bushels left to sell to the rest of the world. At this 
rate, with all our arable soil under cultivation we could feed 
four hundred and fifty million people and have two and a half 
millions of grain (corn, wheat, oats, barley, rye, buckwheat, 
potatoes, etc.) left for export. 

Mr. Edward Atkinson says that where we now support our 
present population of about sixty millions, one hundred millions 
could be sustained without increasing the area of a single farm 
or adding one to the number, by merely bringing our product 
up to an average standard of reasonably good agriculture; and 
then there might remain for export twice the quantity we now 
send abroad to feed the hungry in foreign lands. 

Says Josiah Strong: “ If this be true (and it will hardly be 
questioned by any one widely acquainted with our wasteful 
American farming), l, 500,000 square miles of cultivated land— 
less than one half of our entire area this side of Alaska—are 
capable of feeding a population of 900,000,000, and of pro¬ 
ducing an excess of 5,100,000,000 bushels of grain for exporta¬ 
tion ; or, if the crops were all consumed at home, it would feed 
a population one eighth larger, namely, 1,012,000,000.” It 
need not, therefore, make a severe draught on credulity to say 
that our agricultural resources, if fully developed, would sus¬ 
tain a thousand million souls. The area of our farming ter¬ 
ritory lying west of the Hudson River is three times greater 
than Great Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, 
Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Denmark, and Greece combined. 
The farms of the United States comprise an area nearly equal 
in extent to one third of all Europe and greater than France, 
Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Spain combined. 

Carnegie says that the capital invested in our farms would 
buy up the whole of Italy, “ with its rich olive-groves and 
vineyards, its old historic cities, cathedrals, and palaces, its king 
and aristocracy, its pope and cardinals, and every other feudal 
appurtenance.” 

The crop of 1880 was more than two billio'is and a half of 


26 o 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


bushels. This crop built into a solid mass 365 feet high,—81 
feet higher than Trinity Church steeple and 144 feet higher 
than Bunker Hill monument,—and made the width of an or¬ 
dinary city block, would extend in a straight line, in those pro¬ 
portions, over six miles. “ It would make a pyramid three 
times as great as that of Cheops. If loaded on carts, it would re¬ 
quire all the horses of Europe and a million more (thirty-three 
and a half millions) to remove it, though each horse drew two 
tons. Were the entire crop of cereals loaded on a continuous 
train of cars, the train would reach one and a half times around 
the globe. Its value is half as great as all the gold mined in 
California in the thirty-five years since gold was discovered 
there. 

In 1884 half a million animals and a billion pounds of meat 
were sent across the ocean. The animals that furnished this 
product, placed five abreast, would make a procession over one 
hundred miles long. 

Between i860 and 1880 the product of cereals increased 
from one thousand two hundred and thirty million bushels to 
two thousand seven hundred million, the amount already 
named and illustrated—an increase of over 100 per cent— 
and three thousand million bushels in 1885. It is such facts as 
have been given that led an English economic student and 
'Statistician to complain that “ dealing with the facts and 
figures of American progress and possibilities made one dizzy.” 

Following are some further figures on such progress which 
are not calculated to dispel any sense of giddiness occasioned 
by the foregoing. 

The value of live-stock rose from one thousand million dol¬ 
lars in 1860 to two thousand million in 1880. The annual prod¬ 
uct of the farms reached over two thousand millions, and the 
annual value of food-products of all kinds is estimated at over 
five thousand million dollars. In that same period (i860 to 
1880) the number of people engaged in gainful occupations in¬ 
creased from twelve million five hundred thousand to seventeen 
million five hundred thousand. 

For the year the total value of the wheat, corn, rye, oats, 
.barley, potatoes, hay, etc., was about two thousand five hun- 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


261 

dred million dollars. Garden-truck, berries, orchard-products, 
etc., added several millions more. England, in a single year, 
paid our farmers six thousand millions of dollars for meat, 
butter, cheese, grain, eggs, fish, lard, potatoes, and rice. 

Italy, Spain, Austria, and Canada united do not produce one 
third as much as the product of the United States. The total 
value of the agricultural and pastoral product for 1880 in the 
United States is reckoned at three thousand and twenty millions 
of dollars, as has been stated. Russia produced two thousand 
five hundred and forty-five millions ; Germany, two thousand 
two hundred and eighty millions; France, two thousand two 
hundred and twenty millions ; and England, one thousand two 
hundred and eighty millions of dollars. 

During all these years of expansion not an article of con¬ 
sumption has increased in price, except beef, mutton, and pork 
(owing to the immense foreign demand), and the farmers have 
been reaping the advantage of increased value of their farms. 
The value of the total agricultural product of the Mississippi 
Valley alone was one thousand six hundred million dollars. 

Our wool-clip for 1830 was 18,000,000 pounds; 1850, 
52,000,000 pounds; i860, 60,000,000 pounds ; 1870,160,000,000 
pounds; and 1884, 308,000,000. Last year it was 285,000,000. 
The number of our sheep in 1881 was nearly forty-three and 
one half millions. It went up to 50,626,620 in 1884, and 
dropped to 44,759,314 last year (1887). 

In i860 we had 22,471,275 sheep, and the wool-clip 
amounted to 60,511,343 pounds. In 1883 the duty on wool 
and woolen goods was reduced, as it was on other things, and 
then the number of our sheep commenced to be reduced, and 
the wool-clip was lessened so that in 1886 it only amounted to 
285,000.000 pounds, and in 1887 to 265,000,000 pounds, as esti¬ 
mated by Mr. Dodge, of the Bureau of Statistics of the Agri¬ 
cultural Department. 

For purposes of comparison upon this important product 
the reader will find the following table advantageous: 


262 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Production of Raw Wool in each Principal Country. 


Countries of Production. 

Russia in Europe (1884). 

United Kingdom (1885). 

France (1882). 

Spain (1878). 

Germany (1881).... 

Hungary (1885). 

United States of America (1886). 

Argentine Republic (1885). 

Uruguay (1884). 

Australasia (18S5-86). 

British East Indies, Turkey, and Persia, 
Cape Colony and Natal (1885). 


Wool Produced. 
Pounds, 

. . 262,966,000 
.. 135,936,000 
. . 80,138,000 

.. 66,138,000 

.. 54,894,000 

. . 43,146,000 

. . 285,000,000 
. . 283,047,000 
. . 59,084,000 

•• 455,470,000 
• • 36,354,000 

.. 46,605,000 


Number of Sheep and Lambs 

Countries, 

Russia in Europe (1882). 

United Kingdom (1886). 

France (1885).. 

Spain (1878). 

Germany (1883). 

Hungary (1884). 

United States of America (1887). 

Argentine Republic (1885). 

Uruguay (1884) . 

Australasia (1884-85)... 

India (1877-78). 

Cape Colony and Natal (1875 and 1885). 

We have already given totals in this branch of our subject, 
and there remains but little more to say. It will be interesting, 
however, to take up some prominent instances to show the 
wonderful increase of each product in bulk and value. 

Take barley, for instance, not considered a prominent crop 
in our country. In i860 the crop was sixteen million bushels. 
In 1880 it had increased to forty-five million, a tremendous 
leap, and last year it was sixty million. In 1887 the crop of oats 
was five hundred and sixty million bushels ; rye, twenty-six 
million bushels; corn, nearly one thousand eight hundred mil¬ 
lion bushels; buckwheat, twelve million bushels; molasses, 
twenty-two million five hundred thousand gallons; sugar, 178,- 
000 hogsheads, and so on through hundreds of products. 


Sheep and Lambs. 
Number. 

.. 47,508,966 
.. 28,955,240 
.. 22,616,547 
.. 16,939,288 
.. 19,189,715 
.. 10,594,831 
.. 44,759,314 
.. 75 , 000,000 
.. 15,921,069 
.. 78,888,710 
.. 17,140,757 
.. 11,815,225 


























INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


263 


Of hay, the most valuable American crop, we produced in 
i860 nineteen million tons. In 1880 the crop was thirty-six 
million tons, raised on thirty million acres. 

The tobacco-crop from 1870 to 1880 increased almost 100 
per cent. In 1886 672,000 acres were planted, and the crop 
reached nearly five hundred million pounds, valued at about 
thirty-three million dollars. 

We produced one hundred and thirty-four million bushels 
of potatoes in the year 1887, over two bushels for each man, 
woman, and child; and the value of our orchard-product was 
fifty-three million dollars, and we imported twenty millions of 
dollars’ worth beside. 

In 1830 we raised less than one million bales of cotton. In 
1880 the crop was nearly six million bales, valued at $275,- 
000,000. Last year (1887) the value of exported cotton, un¬ 
manufactured, was $206,000,000, and of manufactures of 
cotton $15,000,000. The total export for 1880 was $220,000,- 
000. In 1830 the value of the export was $30,000,000. 
Two thirds of our export is taken by England alone. 

The following comparison of three staple crops will illus¬ 
trate most forcibly the swift increase in our agricultural pro¬ 
duction : 



Corn. 

Wheat. 

Oats. 


Bushels. 

Bushels. 

Bushels. 

i860. 

838,792.742 

1.754,861,535 

173.104,924 

459.4790O5 

172,643.185 

407,858,999 

1880. 



The product for 1887 is, of course, much larger. Carnegie 
says the sum has been more than two thousand five hundred 
million dollars, and Mulhall values the total agricultural pro¬ 
duct for 1884 no less than two thousand seven hundred and 
twenty-one million five hundred thousand dollars, a sum it is as 
impossible to conceive of or appreciate as the distance to a 
given fixed star. 

In the department of live-stock the figures are not less 
amazing. In 1884 the total value of our farm animals was, 










264 THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 

according to the statistics of the Agricultural Bureau, as 

follows: 

Horses.$833,734,400 

Mules. 161,214,976 

Cattle.1,106,715.703 

Sheep. 119,902,706 

Swine. 246,301,139 

Total.$2,467,868,924 


According to the census of 1870 the total value of farm anh 
mals at that time was $1,525,276,457, this being the currency 
value. The gold value would have been $1,220,221,165. 
Thus we have a gain from 1870 to 1884 of $1,247,647,759, or an 
increase of 102 per cent on farms exclusive of ranches. 

The total number of hogs packed in 1880 was fifteen million, 
valued at three hundred million dollars. Including Chicago, 
the Mississippi Valley alone packed 9,443,774 hogs, valued at 
$155,425,360. Switzler gives the total value of live-stock in 
1880 as $1,525,276,457, and the number as 140,972,673. 

We have about fifteen million horses, two million and a 
half of mules and asses, and the grand cavalcade of domestic 
animals would, marching five abreast, considerably more than 
reach around the earth. In the statistics for our country, for 
every family appears at least one horse, one cow, four pigs, and 
three sheep, three bushels of potatoes, etc., etc., in like propor¬ 
tion, including money and land. 

This statement of the agricultural situation falls far short 
of doing justice to the subject. In many instances allowance 
must be made for the fact that nearly a decade has elapsed 
since the last census was taken, and that the period has been 
one of healthful growth and development. 

But it may be safely assumed that in perhaps every instance 
figures are short of the facts of the present day, and often far 
short of them. The census-takers and statisticians and profes¬ 
sional figurers are unable to keep up with the American industrial 
progress as it strides on in its seven-league boots. Oftentimes 
they gaze amazed and awed at the results of their own compu¬ 
tations, as the sculptor shrank from the statue of Jove he had 
fashioned. It is most pleasant to contemplate the fact that 









INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


265 


this progress is not sectional; that it applies to all parts of the 
country alike; that everywhere within the boundary-lines of 
our vast land the same conditions endure, of advance, of prog¬ 
ress, of growth and expansion in wealth and numbers. 

It is especially pleasant to observe the figures of Southern 
progress under the existing industrial and financial policy, and 
which has prevailed since the Republican party came into 
power. To show this we give the following table showing the 
products of the Southern States for 1880 and 1888, though 
some of the items do not come under the head of the branch 


of industry we are considering : 

Railroad mileage. 

Yield of cotton, bales. 

Grain, bushels, 1887... 

Number of farm animals. 

Value of live-stock. 

Value of chief agricultural products, 1887 

Coal mined, tons, 1887. 

Pig-iron produced, tons, 1887. 

Number of cotton-mills. 

Number of spindles . 

Number of looms. 

Value of cotton goods produced. 

Number of cotton-seed-oil mills. 

Capital invested in cotton-seed oil mills.. 
Phosphate mined, tons. 


1888. 

1880. 

36,736 

19,431 

6,800,000 

5 . 755,359 

626,305,000 

431,074,630 

44,830,972 

28,754,243 

$573,695,550 

$391,312,254 

$742,066,460 

$571,098,454 

16,476,785 

6,049,471 

929-436 

397,301 

294 

179 

1,495.145 

713,989 

34,006 

15,222 

$43,000,000 

$21,000,000 

60 

40 

$12,000,000 

$3,504,000 

432,757 

190,162 


This alone, however, is a splendid exhibition for the South, 
and is only a hint of what will occ-^r in that section if there is 
no legislative interference with existing policies, which make 
such things possible in a section that is just awaking to a real¬ 
ization of its own tremendous strength and illimitable resources 
and has nothing to fear but its own “representatives.” 

In closing this subject, we give the following terse and 
vigorous “ round-number ” statement from Porter: “The num¬ 
ber of farms has doubled, 2,000,000 in i860 to 4,000,000 in 1880; 
their value has increased in that period from $6,000,000,000 to 
over $10,000,000,000. The production of cereals has increased 
under protection from 1,230,000,000 bushels in i860 to 2,700- 
000,000 bushels in 1880, an increase of over 100 per cent. The 

















266 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


value of live-stock has risen from $1,000,000,000 in i860 to 
$1,500,000,000 in 1880; while the annual products of the farm 
have reached $3,000,000,000. The number of sheep, owing to 
the duty on wool, has more than doubled—22,000,000 in i860 
to over 50,000,000 at the present time. The home product of 
wool has increased from 60,000,000 to 325,000,000 pounds.” 

MANUFACTURING. 

Agriculture and manufacturing are the great forces at work 
to develop the resources of the country—one providing food 
and material for clothing, and the other producing the clothing 
and other necessaries and luxuries of life, for the whole people. 
They are industries that go hand in hand, and neither can 
prosper long without the other. 

The force employed in trade and transportation is not a 
productive force to any great extent, it being engaged simply 
in the exchange of articles already produced by those engaged 
in agriculture, manufacturing, and mining. 

Agriculture naturally takes the first place in- numbers, 
amount of product, and importance. But important as our 
agricultural industries are, our manufacturing industries are 
second only to them, and even outrank them in value of prod¬ 
ucts. Allowing the same ratio of increase, says a well-known 
authority, for our manufacturing industries that had taken 
place for a few years pre'^mus to the last census, there are 
now in this country about 300,000 factories, employing nearly 
4,500,000 people, with about $4,000,000,000 of capital invested ; 
and the value of our manufactured products amounts annually 
to nearly $8,000,000,000, an excess, it is said, over those of 
Great Britain of more than $1,000,000,000 annually. How 
important to all, then, that our manufacturing industries also 
be encouraged and fostered by the government, equally and 
side by side with our agricultural industries. 

It is a truth that the English accept with doubt and amaze¬ 
ment the fact that the United States and not England is 
the greatest manufacturing nation in the world. The gen¬ 
eral idea is that America is great only in agriculture and its 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


267 

product, and even our own people are surprised at the fact that 
Illinois, usually considered in her character of a great prairie 
and agricultural State only, is the fourth State in the Union in 
the value of her manufactured products. Only Massachusetts, 
New York, and Pennsylvania lead Illinois in manufacturing. 

Comparing the value of our agricultural with our manu¬ 
factured products, it is shown that, although there are nearly 
twice as many people employed in agriculture as in manufac¬ 
turing, the value of manufactured products is nearly double 
that of agricultural. This is accounted for in a great measure 
by the extensive use of steam, water-power, and machinery 
employed in manufacturing. According to statistics, the ap¬ 
plication of steam-power to machineiy^ in this country has 
added a force equal to 2,183,488 horse-power; and the added 
force of water-power is equal to 1,225,339 horse-power,—mak¬ 
ing the increased force of steam and water combined equal to 
3,408,827 horse-power. If we estimate one horse-power as 
equal to the labor of six men, these two forces have added a 
productive power equal to 20,452,962 men. The steam-power 
alone used in driving factories is equal to 15,110,928 men. It 
is said that the productive force derived from the steam-engines 
and water and air of Great Britain, including her navy, is 
equivalent to the labor of 75,000,000 men. 

The gain of power by the use of steam, water, and machin¬ 
ery is illustrated in our factories, where girls of 15 are attending 
machines which in one day spin a thread 2100 miles in length 
—long enough to reach from New York to California. 

Fifty years ago nearly all the spinning in this country was 
done by the common household spinning-wheel. An active 
woman working ten hours a day could spin a thread only three 
and eight-tenths miles in length, walking more than five miles 
in doing it. Says Mr. Miller: “Before the invention of the 
cotton-gin a man could clean only four pounds of cotton in a 
day. Now, by the use of machinery, he can clean 4000 pounds 
in the same time. A single boot and shoe factory in Massa¬ 
chusetts, employing 1000 men, will turn out nearly as many 
boots and shoes in a year, by the aid of steam and machinery, 


268 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


as 30,cxxD French shoemakers. Some of our American factories 
will take the raw leather and cut and make in twenty minutes 
a pair of ladies’ shoes ready for wear.” It is true that farmers 
also have a great addition to their working forces in the machin¬ 
ery which is worked by horses, mules, and oxen, and lately by 
a modicum of steam-power also; but steam-power, as a produc¬ 
tive force in manufacturing, is far greater than all these. As a 
force to add to our national wealth and to promote the pros¬ 
perity of the people, manufacturing, if possible, outranks all 
other industries. 

Steam-pov/er and machinery add more than one billion of 
dollars to our productive force in manufacturing every year, 
independent of human exertion. Foreign countries gain this 
wealth when they do our manufacturing for us. 

The returns of the tenth census (1880) give the following 
statistics of manufactories in the United States: 

Number of establishments, 253,840 ; capital invested, $2,790,- 
223,506; total amount paid in wages, $947,919,674; value of 
materials, $3,394,340,029; value of products, $5,369,667,706. 

Spofford gives the aggregate returns for other years as 
follows: 1870, $4,232,325,442; i860, $1,885,861,676; 1850, 
$1,019,106,616. This shows an increase in value of manufac¬ 
tured products between 1850 and 1880 of $4,350,472,575, a sum 
too large for the mind to grasp. But since then it has taken 
another leap, and the figures of the next census, if the present 
rate of progress continues, will be just as bewildering. During 
the same period British manufactures increased only 100 per 
cent, while our increase was, everything considered, nearly 
600 per cent. 

In the flouring and grist mills alone the product in 1880 was 
five hundred and five millions of dollars. The figures for this 
industry last year showed an increase almost past belief. There 
were even in 1880 25,000 mills, with a capacity to grind five 
million bushels daily, enough to feed our own people and 300,- 
000,000 Europeans, who consume annually one billion three 
hundred and forty-seven million bushels. 

In the slaughtering and beef-packing industry in 1880 
$50,000,000 capital was invested, 30,000 persons employed, and 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


269 


a product turned out valued at three hundred and three million 
dollars. Nearly two million cattle were killed, two million 
three hundred thousand sheep, sixteen million hogs, as we have 
stated under another head. 

The production of steel rails has grown so enormously that 
we now manufacture more than any other country in the world. 
The importation of steel rails has also declined from 182,135 net 
tons in 1882 to 2395 tons in 1885. Importations under the rise 
in prices are now increasing again. It is estimated that more 
than $1,800,000,000 worth of steel rails have been made in this 
country, and the money which this vast production has cost 
has been kept at home to build up our own towns and cities. 

In the year 1850 we manufactured 564,755 tons of pig-iron, 
while in 1883 we made 5,146,972 tons net, and in the latter 
year we also imported 490,875 tons. Since the reduction of 
duties in 1883 the production of pig-iron has fallen off, in 1885, 

35,595 tons. In 1886 we surpassed Great Britain both in 
production of steel and consumption of iron. It is not possible 
to calculate the general good derived from the building up of 
this mammoth industry by a protective policy. It brought into 
and retained in the country vast sums of money, to go into 
and quicken all the avenues and arteries of trade, to build 
up cities, and by so doing creating home markets for the agri¬ 
culturist, and adding greatly to the volume of trade and the 
business of transportation. 

Our lumber trade in 1880 employed 150,000 men who were 
paid $32,000,000, and turned into market a product valued at 
two hundred and thirty-four million dollars. In one year 
8,000,000,000 feet of lumber has been cut in three States alone ; 
1,500,000,000 feet of pine was cut in the South, and 216,000,- 
000,000 left standing. The supply of timber cannot soon be ex¬ 
hausted, and the amount untouched cannot be estimated in fig¬ 
ures. Recently Senator Palmer of Michigan was asked whether 
the lumber of Michigan, between lumbermen and fires, was not 
about exhausted. He replied that there was yet standing in 
the single State of Michigan enough timber to make a board 
fence fifteen boards high around the earth three times every 
year for fifteen years. 


270 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


But we have not the space to name in detail the thousands 
of branches of manufacturing in the country. That industry 
and the inventions to simplify it are the marvels of the world. 
The communities that have grown up about the great manu¬ 
factories with their pretty cottages, paved streets, gas, elec¬ 
tricity, telephones, telegraphs, railroads, street-cars, parks, 
churches, schools, libraries, lyceums, and all the other concomi¬ 
tants of our advanced civilization, make the ideal industrial 
community that students of political economy and statesmen 
and scholars have dreamed of and theorized about in the past, 
and finally relegated to the limbo of Utopia as impossible of 
realization. 

But here we have it, and nearly every one of these neat 
homes of the operatives is owned by the man who resides in it, 
just as nearly all the farms of America are owned by the men 
who till them. As an evidence of the prosperity of our opera¬ 
tives and wage-workers who own their own homes, send their 
children to the free schools, the high schools and even col¬ 
leges, the savings-bank deposit is a faithful index. Last year 
the total deposit was $1,235,247,371, and the number of de¬ 
positors was 3,418,013. The mill operatives of Massachusetts 
alone have in deposit $274,098,413 ; those of New York, $506,- 
000,000, which is $100,000,000 more than the entire accumu¬ 
lation in the savings banks of England in four centuries. The 
laboring men of little Rhode Island alone have to their credit 
in the savings banks fifty-two millions of dollars. Our deposits 
have been more than three times as much under protection as 
under free trade. 

The English savings banks in thirty-four years of free trade 
increased their deposits $350,000,000. During nineteen years 
of protection in the United States, deposits in the banks of 
nine States increased $628,000,000. Our operatives deposit 
seven dollars to the English operatives’ one. 

In this condition of welfare and money-saving, largely the 
fruit of Republican policy, the laboring man has leisure and 
ease of mind, and can give his attention to devices for improving 
machinery and methods. Nearly all the ingenious mechanism 
of our workshops is invented by practical workers themselves. 


INIERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


271 


Tl’. <*. foreign laborer, pinched by poverty, brutalized, ignorant 
and neglected, has no chance to think about the machinery or 
anything else, except his few coarse and oftentimes degraded 
pleasures. 

Thus we are given one of our greatest advantages in the 
ingenuity and intelligence of our operatives, who possess inven¬ 
tiveness as a national trait. Herbert Spencer testified that 
“ beyond question, in respect of mechanical appliances, the 
Americans are ahead of all nations.” The fact of superior 
tools would alone give us no small advantage, but the posses¬ 
sion of the best machinery implies much more—namely, that we 
have also the best mechanics in the world. 

While the manufactures of France from 1870 to 1880 in¬ 
creased $230,0C)0,cxx), those of Germany $430,000,000, and those 
of Great Britain $580,000,000, those of the United States 
increased $1,030,000,000—an increase almost equal to that of 
these three great nations combined. While England’s coal is 
growing dearer, ours will be growing cheaper. The development 
of our vast resources will greatly increase, and hence cheapen raw 
materials. Every year the superior intelligence and inventive 
genius of our workmen elevate the standard of excellence in 
our machinery and mechanical appliances, and will continue to 
do so. 

Even now, in almost every manufactured commodity, we can 
and do undersell foreign countries in their own marts, cheapen 
the steel in Sheffield, the watches in Switzerland, the cotton irr 
Manchester, and the electric plate in Birmingham. And while 
we undersell them on their own door-sills, it is no wonder they 
put forth every effort to procure free trade with America, and 
break down the protective barrier thrown around our industries, 
or that their sympathy is with the Democratic party and against 
the party which considers it a patriotic duty to uphold the 
‘‘American System.” 


COMMERCE. 

In estimating the growth and development of our com¬ 
merce during the last thirty years we must not consider merely 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


272 

the greater bulk, but the change in character and increase in 
variety, of the subject-matter of commerce. 

Science has disclosed more important uses for thousands of 
articles which have been held as worthless, and the inventive 
genius of the country has produced numberless novel and useful 
improvements in the devices and instrumentalities for lighten¬ 
ing the labor of and lifting the burdens from our people, while 
multiplying their comforts a thousandfold. Of course our 
industries have been and are the parents of our commerce, 
furnishing as they do the materials for that commerce. Thirty- 
five years ago the commerce of our country was confined, in 
the main, to a comparatively limited number of articles. Our 
industries were then to what they are now as one to ten. 
They presented a scene of drudgery and struggling poverty. 

Under a wise policy of favorable and encouraging legisla¬ 
tion they have grown to the vast proportions that have been 
indicated under previous heads in this article. 

With this advance, commerce and trade have kept pace 
with adequate improvements in shipping, handling, and trans¬ 
portation, and with them have come improved facilities for ex¬ 
change, a perfection of national currency, increase of wages, 
increase of wealth, the upspringing of great States, communi¬ 
ties, and cities, unparalleled increase of population, procurement 
of comforts and luxuries, and upraising of the general standard 
of living, of education and intelligence—thus raising and ad¬ 
vancing the condition of a people beyond anything ever known 
in a like time in the world’s history. Our tremendous rate of 
progress may be judged by the fact that last year after supplying 
our sixty million people with everything needful, far beyond 
what the general people of any other country can afford, we 
sold to the world merchandise to the value of over seven hun¬ 
dred and sixteen million dollars, as against two hundred and 
eighty-one millions in 1856, and that in 1850 our total domestic 
export was $136,946,912, against $703,022,923 last year (1887). 

We were able to sell to the world in 1850 one hundred and 
twenty-four million dollars’ worth of agricultural products, and 
last year we made the rest of the world pay us for our surplus 
agricultural product five hundred and twenty-three million 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


273 


dollars. Meanwhile our population increased from 23,000,000 
in 1850 to 50,000,000 in 1880. From 1850 to i860 our increase 
in population was over 35 per cent ; from i860 to 1870 nearly 
23 per cent; and from 1870 to 1880 it was over 30 per cent. 
From 1880 up to the present our increase from immigration 
alone has been fourteen million. Seven hundred and eighty- 
nine thousand arrived in one year (1882). 

Some startling facts as to our commerce have been given 
under preceding heads when they were deemed appropriate for 
purposes of comparison, which is the first object of this article. 
Indeed to separate absolutely from one another the different 
topics is difficult, so closely are the interests of all interwoven, 
and so much is one dependent upon another. 

Our total imports last year were $726,042,923, against 
$75,000,000 in 1830 and $163,186,510 in 1850, specie values. 
But the account of our exports is more astonishing in its in¬ 
crease. Beginning in 1790 at $20,000,000, it leaped to $60,000,- 
000 in 1830, and bounded from that sum to $137,000,000 in 
1850, and to $726,000,000 last year. 

In 1886 we exported to Canada $15,000 worth not em¬ 
braced in the United States customs accounts. Spofford under 
the head of “ Commerce of Nations ” puts our total export 
last year at $752,180,902, and imports $762,490,560. Under 
Progress of American Exports in Thirty Years,’' Spofford 
puts the increase from 1850 to 1880 at $689,000,000. 

These figures show vividly the great advance made under 
the policy of protection. With this advance, wages have be¬ 
come higher and rates of transportation lower. The building 
up of great cities and commercial centers creates home markets 
for farmers. The nearer the producer and the consumer can 
be brought together the less is paid for transportation, and the 
less the products of industry are absorbed by middlemen. 
The construction of cheap transportation routes has been 
stimulated. By making all kinds of business prosperous a de¬ 
mand is created for a greater number of railroads and increased 
facilities for moving freight. The more railroads we have, and 
the more waterways and other means of transportation, the 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


274 

less the cost of transporting the farmers’ products, as well as 
manufactured goods. There is no country in the world where 
there are so many railroads as in this, and no country where 
the freight rates are so low. 

In 1865 the average charge per ton per mile for moving 
merchandise over the New York Central and Hudson River 
Railroad was $3.27 in gold. In the year 1885 the average charge 
per ton per mile on the same road was 68 cents, a decrease 
since 1865 of $2.59 per ton in gold. The United States also 
builds more ships than any other nation in the world except 
Great Britain. Our vessels, however, are nearly all used along 
our coast and on our inland waters for transportation in our 
domestic commerce. 

In 1885 we built 920 vessels of all sorts with a gross tonnage 
of 159,056 tons. But our shipping is of little consequence 
compared with our railroads, canals, and waterways, and Amer¬ 
ica turns her back to the sea and faces the enormous field of 
internal commerce and development. She can well afford to 
use the ships made and manned by the cheap labor of Eng¬ 
land. American thrift and energy and industry will instinctively 
seek the most promising field ; when the sea becomes that 
field, the Yankee will promptly take possession of it. Since 
she has turned her face inward toward internal development 
and commerce, she has built up a property she would not ex¬ 
change for all the kingdoms of the earth—a railroad property 
worth more than all the fleets that float. 

The coasting trade of America presents a tonnage of 
34,000,000 tons. Our total tonnage in 1884 was over 3,000,000 
tons, next to that of Great Britain. The shipping engaged in 
internal commerce has a tonnage of 1,000,000, giving a total 
tonnage of 4,250,000 compared with the 7,000,000 of Great 
Britain. The American coasting tonnage alone is more than 
double the entire foreign traffic, while domestic commerce by 
rail, lake, and river is twenty times greater than the foreign 
trade. 

In closing let us take a glance into the wonderland of the 
West. Consider for a moment these astounding statistics for 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


275 


the city of Minneapolis: During 1887, 6428 miles were added 
to the railroads entering her depots; 6,375,250 barrels of flour 
were manufactured, against 940,786 in 1879; 46,000,000 bushels 
of wheat were handled in 1887, or 11,000,000 more than in 
1886. In 1887 $11,010,537 was disbursed for freight by rail on 
wheat, flour, and bran, received or forwarded. The value of 
articles manufactured at Minneapolis last year, exclusive of 
lumber and flour, was $23,461,000, against $5,696,000 in 1878 
The city, with a population of 200,000 souls, has nineteen 
banks, and the bank clearances had jumped from $87,978,000 in 
1883 to $194,267,737 in 1887. In 1880 the population did not 
exceed 46,887. 

This is the most amazing progress ever made by any city. 
Forty-five years ago the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis 
neither existed nor were thought of. In 1887 the country 
tributary to St. Paul produced 95,000,000 bushels of wheat, 
half as many bushels of corn, 90,000,000 bushels of oats, 
$18,000,000 in silver, $5,000,000 in gold, $5,000,000 in copper, 
2,500,000 head of cattle, 1,622,000 head of sheep, and an 
equally large amount in proportion of many other products, 
including an immense lumber product. No less than 3535 
miles of railway by 1887 centred at these two cities, and the 
value of manufactured products had been increased from 
$6,150,900 in 1878 to $35,713,314 in 1887. 

At St. Paul there were fourteen banks with a business capital 
of $6,675,000, whose loans aggregated $19,599,000, and whose 
exchange dealings footed up $160,427,000, while the money 
orders of the post-office there amounted to $4,153,215, and the 
population was estimated at 225,000. 

By the census of 1880 the population of St. Louis was 
350,000, and was enumerated at 450,000 in 1886. In 1887 
aggregate tonnage of freight by river and rail received and 
shipped at St. Louis was 4,895,457 tons, against 2,122,624 in 
1878 from the South. The total shipments and receipts of 
freight by river and rail from all quarters in 1887 were 14,359,059 
tons, against 6,995,241 tons in 1878. Bank clearances aggre¬ 
gated $894,527,791 in 1887, against $810,769,962 in 1886. 

Kansas City adds its great chapter to the thrilling story. 


2/6 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Her population was but 2000 in 1857, 5^00 in 1865. Her 

population in 1887 had reached 166,000, while the transactions 
of her clearing house were increased from $204,333,000 in 1885 
to $311,895,000 for the year ended on June 30, 1887, the 
place then taking rank as the tenth city in the United States 
in the magnitude of its clearances. Bank deposits were in¬ 
creased from $11,249,000 in 1886 to $21,289,000 in 1887, 
loans from $8,024,000 to $14,278,000, specie from $832,000 to 
$1,914,000, and legal tenders from $945,000 to $1,664,000. 
The assessed valuation was increased from $9,000,000 in 1878 
to $53,917,000 in 1887. 

In 1880 Omaha had a population of but 30,000; to-day it 
numbers 125,000. The wholesale trade during 1887 nearly 
doubled that of 1886. Here has grown up one of the largest 
reduction works of the money metals in the world. Omaha 
is already the third place in the country in respect of the 
slaughtering of animals and packing of meat. Its bank clear¬ 
ings for 1887 more than doubled those of 1884, and were in¬ 
creased from $93,793,835 in 1886 to $144,414,148 in 1887. 
The industrial establishments of this city have had a phenom¬ 
enal growth even for the Mississippi Valley. Hogs, beef, and 
sheep were slaughtered there last year to the value of $ 13,708,120. 

This is but a small part of the interesting story, and only 
these cities are chosen to illustrate a progress that is not a 
steady moving on, but a progress by tremendous bounds that 
clear spaces which in other countries it took centuries to cover. 


RAILWAYS. 

There is no more interesting subject connected with the 
internal development of the United States than the rise, growth, 
and present condition of the railway system. 

While the figures of railway progress are almost beyond be¬ 
lief, there are a thousand matters connected with this develop¬ 
ment that cannot be covered by these figures. They have 
nothing to say of the civilizing and humanizing influence of 
the tremendous system of railroads and steam horses that make 
a network of steel, the meshes of which cover all the land. 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


277 

The railroad statistics of themselves do little beyond sug¬ 
gesting to the thoughtful something of what the industry has 
been and is to the country, in the way of education, and raising 
the high standard of intelligence and knowledge and mental 
activity of our people, who, through encouragement of railways, 
and internal improvements, free schools, protection to American 
labor from foreign competition, free homes, and absolute free 
trade between the States and Territories of the Union, have 
become the most intelligent, ingenious, progressive, and pros¬ 
perous people in the world, aided as they have been by an un^ 
told wealth of varied natural resources such as God has blessed 
no other nation with. 

The development of our railway system is only partially 
shown by an exhibit of the number of miles of increase in lines 
built. A hundred other considerations enter into the matter. 
We must consider the character of the roads, the nature of the 
machinery, and equipment in reference to safety, speed, and 
capacity, all tending to reduce the cost of shipment and trans¬ 
portation, and greatly simplifying the problem involved in the 
wonderful growth of our commerce. 

We must know that by these improvements business is done 
by merchants and manufacturers and producers of all kinds, in 
transportation of goods, at one half the gross profit charged and, 
in fact, indispensable thirty-five years ago. The improvements 
in the handling of goods, of grain, of farm animals, of heavy 
substances and every description of production, have kept full 
pace with the progress of the railways in efficiency toward the 
goal of comparative perfection. 

It is only about fifty years ago that the first rail was laid. 
It is wholly within that period that our people have learned to 
travel by rail. Passengers were carried in lumbering stage¬ 
coaches, and mails taken by stage or upon horseback. In 1835 
the speed of communications achieved by the “Express Mail’' 
was presented as the triumph of fast traveling. The mail 
express took one day and eight hours between New York and 
Washington, and four days and sixteen hours between New 
York and Columbus, Ohio. The discomforts of those times 
can readily be recalled by many people who now ride from 


278 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


New York to Washington in five hours, and enjoy on the way 
every comfort and even every luxury they have in their own 
homes, no matter how well provided they are with this world’s 
goods. 

People are excusable for smiling when they think of Clay’s 
account of his first railroad ride when he “swept along at the 
amazing rate of fifteen miles an hour,” when they are sweeping 
along at the rate of from fifty to sixty miles an hour on the 
road between Washington and Baltimore, or Philadelphia and 
New York. 

In the carrying trade of commerce the advance has not 
been less remarkable, and the difference between the old 
ordinary passenger-cars and the present palace hotel-cars is 
not less striking than the difference between the ancient and 
modern cars for transporting animals. The terms “ancient” 
and “modern” in American progress often represent a differ¬ 
ence of time of only a decade, or at the most a generation. 

In 1830 the first mile of railroad in America was graded, 
and in 1880 we had in our country nearly 88,(X)o miles of com¬ 
pleted road, which is more than long enough to reach around 
the globe three times. During that time we laid rail enough 
to wrap a steel string around the globe eight times in case she 
showed any signs of bursting or bulging out from internal 
pressure. 

Our areas, distances, length of rivers and canals, and coasts 
and railroads are bewildering to our European friends, and 
especially to the denizens of our mother-country treading 
about in the peck measure of their “tight little island.” Even 
our own people are often astonished beyond measure at the 
com.parisons made between things American and things foreign. 
If you combine the great empire of Germany with the vast 
republic of France, or with England herself, you can put the 
result inside of the boundaries of the single State of Texas, and 
leave room for Mr. Mills and his tariff bill to get lost in. 

The total train mileage last year was 569,772,990, and the 
number of passengers carried was 382,284,972. The number 
of tons moved was 482,245,254. The total freight earnings 
were $550,359,054 ; the passenger earnings were $211,929,857 , 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


2/9 


and the income from other sources was $60,000,000. The total 
earnings of our entire railroad system were $882,191,949. The 
operating expenses were $524,880,334. Net earnings were 
$297,311,615. Continuing to give the cold figures of our 
railroad industry, which make the skeleton furnished by the 
statistician upon which the writer may put the warm flesh of 
deduction and illustration and comparison, we find that the cost 
of equipment of the railway system as it existed last year was 
$7,254,995,223. The total assets were $8,548,315,333, and the 
total available revenue $363,511,704. 

These figures contrast startlingly with those of the railroads 
as late as 1838, when the following notice appeared in the Phila¬ 
delphia Public Ledger: “ Fare Reduced ! Leech & Co.’s Packet 
Line to Pittsburgh, via railroads and canals. Through in four 
and a half days! ” Such rapid and reckless traveling in those 
days was looked upon as almost “tempting Providence.” Yet 
men who made that trip are still alive, and making the same 
trip in a few hours in the magnificent “ vestibule ” trains run¬ 
ning at the rate of from 45 to 50 miles an hour. To-day San 
P'rancisco is practically as near New York as was Pittsburgh in 
those good old days. 

In i860 we had a total of 30,635 miles of railroad; in 1870, 
52,914 miles; in 1880,93,349 miles; and by the end of 1887 
we had reached the enormous figure of 148,987 miles. From 
1883 to 1887, inclusive, there were constructed 34,174 miles; 
thus the increase in these 5 years was greater than our total 
mileage in i860—the product of over 30 years of effort. The 
length of rails in 1886 was about 270,000 miles, of which over 
105,723 were steel. There were in use 27,000 locomotives, 
20,000 passenger cars, and 845,914 freight cars. 

The progress of transportation facilities in the United States 
from pedestrianism to railroads and steamboats is a fascinating 
subject, but we have space for dealing with it only in a cursory 
way. Having given the totals illustrating the immensity of 
the system, let us take some practical illustrations from a single 
railway company. 

As good a representative line to use in this connection as 
any is the great Pennsylvania system, taken all in all the most 


28 o 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


notable railway system in the world, though there are several 
others in the United States that are its close rivals. The num¬ 
ber of miles controlled by the Pennsylvania Company is nearly 
8,000. The total number of miles of track belonging to the 
company is nearly 12,000. The total number of miles of rail 
owned by the company is 23,000, which would nearly reach 
around the earth. The company owns nearly 3000 locomo¬ 
tives. These engines placed in a straight line would reach 
from Jersey City to Steelton. The company owns 2600 pas¬ 
senger cars, a line 27 miles long. The number of freight cars 
is nearly 100,000. In a straight line they would reach 550 
miles, or if one end was in Jersey City the other end would 
be west of Canton, Ohio. Maintenance-of-way cars number 
1000, making a line 6 miles long. Hand-cars and hand-trucks 
number 3,000, a line 5 miles long; and the 140 sleeping-cars 
would reach 3 miles. 

As we said in our preliminary remarks, the total of rolling 
stock would reach, on a straight track, 605 miles, or from 
Jersey City to a point near Lucas Station, 165 miles west of 
Pittsburgh. 

A locomotive of the present day costs on an average of 
$8100. The total value of Pennsylvania engines is about 
$14,000,000. At any given hour there are moving on the lines 
of the company 249 trains, made up of 1033 cars ; of these, 
164 passenger trains are east of Pittsburgh, and 85 west. At 
the same time there would be moving on lines east and west 
of Pittsburgh 500 freight trains with 1400 cars. At the Jersey 
City station 181 passenger trains arrive and depart daily, with 
nearly 1000 cars. At Broad Street Station, Philadelphia, 400 
passenger trains arrive and depart daily, with nearly 2000 cars. 

The company has, from president down, 44,000 employes. 
The average daily pay-roll is nearly $69,000 ; and last year the 
total pay-roll was nearly $25,000,000. The number of men, 
women, and children directly and indirectly dependent upon 
the company for a living is a little over 220,000. Last year 
the company carried 5363 tons of freight an hour, 128,711 tons 
a day, and a total in the year of 46,979,537 tons. 

The total number of passengers carried last year was 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


281 


40,677,313, an average per day of 111,445, per hour of 
4644. The company took into and out of Jersey City 5,336,319 
passengers, a daily average of 14,620. From 1864 to 1886, in¬ 
clusive, the Pennsylvania Company carried in round numbers 
283,000,000 passengers. 

This stupendous organization has grown up entirely within 
the knowledge of some men still connected with it, and from 
the humblest beginnings, and is a magnificent evidence of the 
power of human genius and the progress of our countiy. Yet 
there are several other systems scarcely inferior to it in the 
statistics. From these figures a better general idea can be ob¬ 
tained of the magnitude of our railroad system. 

But the magnitude is not the only test to apply. We must 
consider the cost of moving freight, which is the lowest in the 
world ; much less than European prices. 

Again, consider the present track with its heavy steel rails 
and fish-plates; its solid stone-ballasted bed ; its iron bridges 
or stone-arched bridges and viaducts; its wonderful system of 
switches, “ block ” stations, and signals made almost the acme 
of perfection, in conjunction with electrical appliances from 
the telegraph to the incandescent light; and the tanks from 
which water is taken while the engine is going at the highest 
rate of speed. It is but a few years since any of these appli¬ 
ances, and hundreds of others that may be named, were un¬ 
known. We well remember the thin iron rails, their battered 
ends failing to join neatly in the “ chairs,” producing the pound¬ 
ing “ chuggety chug ” noise we can recall. 

We remember the little and inconvenient cars with high win¬ 
dows, big wood-stoves and wood-box, the two tallow candles, 
the hand-brakes, and the link and pin coupling; the cars in 
almost every instance being “ odd-mated,” and the coupling 
toggled up with chains, sticks of wood, and even with ropes. 
These cars were like egg-shells for crushing purposes and tele¬ 
scoping, as the bloody record of deaths by that cause will testify. 
Only eight years ago we rode in trains answering this descrip¬ 
tion, on tracks that were little better than “ two lines of rust,” 
in the South, at the rate of 5 miles an hour, where now 


282 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


trains of vestibule cars go sweeping over steel rails at from 45 
to 50 miles an hour. 

It is a splendid and thrilling sight to see one of these 
magnificent trains rushing along at 50 miles an hour, some¬ 
times running 60 miles an hour, flying over the bridges, plung¬ 
ing into the tunnels from which it issues with a roar, gliding 
through peaceful pastoral lands, or among the black and 
blasted regions of the coal and iron countries. Now it is high 
in the air, hanging over a boiling flood, now deep down in the 
bowels of the mountain, anon dashing into and defying the 
storm and the darkness; on, on, never pausing in the wild 
flight across a continent, mountains, rivers, lakes, and plains. 

And all the while the people in the cars read and gossip, 
and eat and drink, and sleep, and write, and knit, and smoke, 
and have and do almost everything they could in their own 
homes and hotels. Mothers are petting their babies ; little ones 
are romping, or are saying their evening prayers at mother’s 
knee before being curtained away in the luxurious couch; 
lovers are wooing; young married couples shyly “ spooning 
“ drummers” telling amazing yarns of which they are the 
heroes;—and all the time the great train is flying across the 
country like a meteor, emblematic, in its splendid perfection, its 
fierce energy, its irresistible onward rush, of the great American 
people themselves. 


WATERWAYS. 

Besides the artificial highways furnished by the railroads, 
we have the greatest system of natural waterways in the world, 
aided as it is by an elaborate canal system. 

East of the Rocky Mountains w(f have a river-flow of more 
than 40,000 miles, counting no stream less than 100 miles in 
length, while Europe has but 17,000 miles. It is estimated 
that the Mississippi with its affluents affords 35,000 miles of 
navigation. A steamboat may pass up the Mississippi and 
Missouri 3900 miles from the Gulf, as far as from New York to 
Constantinople. Thus a vast system of natural canals carries 
our seaboard into the very heart of the continent. 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


283 


Although the traffic of our waterways is not large, compara¬ 
tively, the system of waterways under favorable conditions is 
able to exert a great influence in the regulation of internal 
transportation, which without the rivers would be in the 
hands entirely of the railroads, without competition. There is 
not another waterway system in the world to compare with 
the Mississippi. The number of square miles in the United 
States is 3,025,502, and the Mississippi system embraces an 
area of 1,238,642. Its navigable streams number 45, and 
furnish the people more than 16,000 miles of river navigation— 
a line more than four times the length of the ocean line from 
New York to Liverpool. 

“The people of the United States possess in the Missis¬ 
sippi and its 44 navigable tributaries highways of commerce 
and cheap transportation to the seaboard of the commercial 
value of $2,000,000,000; that is to say, lines of railroad of 
equal length and tonnage with that river and its tributaries, if 
constructed at the usual expense of such improvements, would 
cost the people of the United States this enormous and almost 
incomprehensible sum, and these great water-ways capable of 
bearing to the markets of the country, and from thence to 
foreign ports the tonnage indicated, are free gifts of nature.’' 

One third of the fresh water in the world is in our lakes, 
and we have the largest river in the world in the Mississippi, 
sweeping along its awful flood of 2,000,000 cubic feet per hour. 
We have a dozen or more rivers which permit navigation into 
the country to distances of from 150 to 200 miles, and steam¬ 
ships of 3000 tons burden ply upon our inland seas. These 
great natural waterways have been supplemented and con¬ 
nected with each other by artificial canals. There were in 
the United States in 1880 4468 miles of canals, which had 
cost $265,000,000. Nearly 2000 miles of canal had, however, 
been abandoned, having been rendered valueless by the supe¬ 
rior facilities offered by railroads. Freight traffic in canals in 
1880 amounted to 21,144,292 tons, yielding a gross income of 
$45,000,000. 

The traffic upon the western rivers is immense, and we may 
consider some cases in point, though the matter properly comes 


284 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 


under the head of internal commerce. Of the Ohio River a 
well-known authority has stated that the total of its trade 
from its head at Pittsburgh to its mouth at New Cairo exceeded 
in 1874 $800,000,000. It is upon the Ohio that the cheapest 
transportation in the world exists. Coal, coke, and other 
bulky articles are transported at the rate of one twentieth of a 
cent per ton per mile. 

The records of 1884 show that there were owned in the one 
city of Pittsburgh, for use on the Ohio, 4323 vessels, including 
barges, with a tonnage of i,7C)0,000. One hundred and sixty- 
three of these were steamboats. “ Twenty thousand miles of 
navigable waterways lie before these Pittsburgh craft, and 
many thousand miles more are ready to be opened by easily- 
constructed improvements in the lesser streams. This work 
the General Government is steadily performing year after year, 
as well as improving the existing navigation. Even to-day a 
boat can start from Pittsburgh for a port 4300 miles distant, as 
far as from New York to Queenstown and half way back, or as 
far away as the Baltic ports are from New York.” 

To the tourist there is no grander scenery in the world than 
he finds along the banks of the rivers of America, and nowhere 
else exist such magnificent steamboats as ply upon those 
waters, floating palaces that make worthy companionship with 
the palace vestibule trains on land. 

MINING. 

With all the visible gifts with which Providence blessed this 
country, its limitless plains of rich soil, its great lakes, mighty 
rivers and innumerable harbors, its unequaled climate, the 
beneficent provision for building up the greatest nation and 
greatest people on the earth did not stop. 

Under our soil, as well as upon it, nature placed riches un¬ 
told, a wealth that has made us the foremost mining as we are 
the leading agricultural, pastoral, and manufacturing nation of 
the world. 

From 1870 to 1880 we produced $732,ooo,o<X) of the precious 
metals. The United States now produces one half of the gold 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


285 


and silver of the world’s supply. Iron ore is to-day mined in 
twenty-three of our States. A number of them could singly 
supply the world’s demand. Our coal-measures are simply in¬ 
exhaustible. English coal-pits, already deep, are being deep¬ 
ened, so that the cost of coal-mining in Great Britain is con¬ 
stantly increasing, while we have coal enough near the surface 
to supply us for centuries. As one author puts it: ^‘When 
storing away the fuel for the ages, God knew the place and work 
to do which he had appointed us, and gave us twenty times as 
much of this concrete power as to all the peoples of Europe.” 

Our mineral products (of all kinds) are of equal richness and 
variety. The remarkable increase from 1870 to 1880 places us 
at the head of nations. Our mining industries exceed those of 
Great Britain three per cent, and are greater than those of all 
continental Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Mexico, and 
the British colonies collectively, and as yet we have hardly 
begun to develop these resources. While the farmers are 
gathering upon the surface a crop almost large enough to feed 
all the people upon the earth, the miners are bringing up from 
beneath the hidden riches of the earth, stored in quantities in¬ 
exhaustible. Gold, silver, minerals of every description known 
to man, coal, iron, precious stones, clay, salt, and so on, in end¬ 
less variety and abundance, these riches are stored beneath and 
are being brought to the surface to enrich mankind. 

Nature, in her seeming eagerness to shower upon this land 
and this people blessings unprecedented and favors unlimited, 
does not rest with storing her good things to wait the toilsome 
burrowing of man. In her own way, with surface hints, in 
strong odors and oily smears and small blue flames, she sug¬ 
gests to man to probe the soil, and rewards him with rivers of 
oil and the flame and roar of natural gas. These she sends up 
to him freed from all toil of delving or pumping, fairly forcing 
upon him the vast supplies from her inexhaustible storehouse 
of riches. 

She lays her coal and iron, in quantities sufficient to supply 
all the world, almost upon the surface, and combines with them 
all other products necessary for reduction and manufacture, 
and leads out from such locations the greatest and cheapest 


286 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


system of water-transportation in the world. In places she 
puts, side by side, mountains of iron and mountains of coal 
and mountains of limestone, and laves their common base with 
rivers that give waterway communication to every part of the 
world, while in and out among the richly-stored hills wind 
the railroads, the iron arteries of land commerce. It is not in 
quantity and quality alone that nature has favored us, but in 
conditions and location she has added an hundredfold to her 
gifts, giving us facilities no other nation possesses, even to a 
single degree of comparison. 

In 1845 we began to produce gold, and not until 1859 were 
our silver-mines discovered. Yet in the forty years up to 1886 
we have taken out of the earth gold to the value of $1,718,348,301, 
and in only twety-nine years of silver-mining we have pro¬ 
duced $748,893,760. From these two sources alone in the 
mining industry we have added to the wealth of the world 
$2,479,236,971. The total production of precious metals in all 
the countries of the earth from 1493 to 1879, including the 
enormous products of Mexico, Peru, and Potosi (Bolivia), was 
$10,802,329,343, of which the United States furnished $1,175,- 
000,138. During the calendar year of 1886 we produced in gold 
and silver $86,190,500, and our total coinage was $57,703,413. 

In the year 1886, from our coal area of 195,403 square 
miles, we produced 106,780,033 tons, according to Saward’s 
estimate, England and America producing twice as much as all 
the rest of the world. According to the last census, we pro¬ 
duced in 1880 70,481,426 tons, valued at $94,558,608. At the 
same time the total world’s production was 405,988,554 tons of 
2240 lbs. Our production of cast or pig iron was 6,433,851 
tons, with 6,566,107 tons of steel ingots and 3,712,726 tons of 
rails. 

Now, to enable us to more clearly comprehend the value of 
these productions, particularly those of gold and silver, let us 
make another practical illustration with the money in the 
Treasury, such as was given in the preliminary remarks. 

When the figures for these illustrations were obtained 
the Treasury assets were $281,096,417 in gold and nearly 
$250,000,000 in silver. The weight of this $281,000,000 is, as 


INTERNAL DEVELOPxMENT. 


287 


v^e said, 519 tons, and we have given an illustration of the cart¬ 
age of this sum. Counted as gold, the surplus would weigh 
86J tons; counted as silver it would weigh 1385 tons. Each 
million of gold adds 3685 pounds to the surplus, and each 
million of silver adds 58,930 pounds. Applying cubic measure¬ 
ment to the Treasury gold and silver, and piling the two metals 
on Pennsylvania Avenue as cordwood is piled before delivery to 
the purchaser, we find that the gold would measure 37 cords 
and the silver 490 cords, and that both would extend from the 
Treasury Department to Four and a Half Street, or from the 
Treasury to the Pension Office in a straight line, and forming a 
solid wall eight feet high and four feet broad, the distance 
being eight long city squares. 

As yet natural gas is too new a product, and its increase too 
great, to admit of giving definite figures concerning it; and if 
these figures could be given, they would be incomprehensible. 

This new factor promises to be one of the most tremendous 
agents in the wealth-production of the world, and already is 
revolutionizing methods of manufacture and conditions that 
have long endured. As for petroleum, the value of our export 
alone of that prodnct in 1884 was over $625,ooo,0(X) The flow 
both of oil and gas goes on increasing year by year. As the 
United States furnishes one half of the annual gold product of 
the world, so she leads the world in the annual product of 
silver, viz., $46,200,000. At the present rate the close of the 
present decade will show that the United States has added 
$500,000,000 in silver to the world’s wealth during the ten 
years. 

America and Spain together furnish more than one half the 
total lead product, and the country ranks only third in the 
production of zinc, though a dozen of years ago very little was 
produced. 

In copper production, as in gold and silver, the United 
States stands pre-eminent. One half the total product is fur¬ 
nished by her and Chili. To-day nearly seven times as much 
copper is produced as in i860. We have increased our output 
from 650 tons in 1850 to over 63,000 in 1884. It is now much 
more, and this decade will double the product of 1880. One 


288 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


mine furnishes nearly 40 per cent of the whole (Calumet and 
Hecla). 

Our coal-field is twenty-five times as large as that of Great 
Britain, and is equal to three quarters of the coal-field area of 
the world. We have contributed one-half of all the world’s 
gold, and we produce annually one-third the total silver. We 
furnish more than one fourth the copper-supply of the world, 
and the same proportion vof the lead product. The mere state¬ 
ment of figures shows that in the matter of production theUnited 
States is already leading the world, but these figures give no 
hint of the great advance and improvement in all other ways 
that goes along with this enormous production of wealth. For 
instance, the mining and consumption of coal means force, 
power, energy for manufactures, transportation, and the crea¬ 
tion of wealth. England now mines 160,000,000 tons of coal a 
year. 

This applied to her machinery gives her the producing and 
wealth creating capacity of 600,000,000 of men, though her 
population is less than 40,000,000. 

In 1861 our output of coal was only 16,000,000 tons. In 
1882, after twenty-one years of protective tariff, it had risen to 
90,000,000 tons, being a gain of 462!- per cent. That means 
that the effective capacity of the machinery of this country, and 
its power to create wealth, are 5f times what they were twenty- 
one years ago. Twenty years more of like progress, and our 
output of coal will exceed that of England or any other country 
on the globe, and will give us a capacity in productive machin¬ 
ery of at least 600,000,000 of human beings. 

In a thousand ways the country is benefited by the mining 
industry, aside from the direct wealth of its products. The 
opening of mines, like the building of railroads, develops new 
regions and plants cities and villages, and builds up manufac¬ 
turing and industrial communities. There are handsome cities 
with fine public buildings, paved streets and street-cars, schools 
and churches, and daily newspapers, standing to-day where 
twelve or fifteen years ago the only inhabitants were grizzlies 
and coyotes. There are cities in the South to-day that number 
their people by the thousands, and even tens of thousands, 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 


289 


that boast of broad streets and boulevards, electric and cable 
cars, hotels, public halls, churches and schools, telephones, 
electric lights, daily newspapers, half a dozen railroads, with a 
busy, pushing, prosperous people, where ten years ago there 
was hardly a house. 

The private residences will compare with almost any in 
architecture and taste—as, for instance, the suburban homes of 
Birmingham, Ala., which in many cases already are in the midst 
of beautiful parks and private grounds. Such instances are 
almost numberless of the sudden upbuilding of cities about 
newly-discovered mines, and in each case an agricultural com¬ 
munity springs up about it rapidly, to supply its needs, showing 
the blessing and even the necessity of a “ home market " to 
agriculture ; showing how dependent our industries are upon 
one another: that as one prospers, others are benefited; and 
likewise as one is injured, others suffer. 

CONCLUSION. 

In conclusion we may say that no one can deal with the 
subject of American progress without being painfully conscious 
of the futility of any attempt to convey an adequate idea of 
the vastness of the subject, the comparative character of the 
progress made, and the grandeur of the condition as it now 
exists. 

Yet all this pales into insignificance before the distinct 
promise of what is to come, that looms up vast and awful as the 
specter of the Brocken. 

It is no wonder that an English writer in a recent magazine 
article takes up the subject of the already gigantic greatness of the 
United States and raises the alarm that they will soon domi¬ 
nate the whole world; that even now they are almost at the 
point where they can make any demand upon England, and 
which they can enforce upon threat of shutting off the food- 
supply, and that they will soon be able to hold all the nations 
of the earth in subjection with peaceful weapons more forceful 
than armies and war-ships. It is no wonder that the Cobden 


290 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Club fights desperately to cripple and obstruct this portentous, 
and colossal growth. 

The figures we have been giving cover a period of high 
tariff for protection, as contrasted with the period of a revenue 
tariff; and he who runs may read the story of the influence of 
the protective policy. We give few arguments and deductions 
from the figures and facts set up. The average American in¬ 
telligence will do that for itself, as it reads the record of what 
has been achieved. 

So bold, far-seeing, and courageous was the Republican party, 
under whose control all this has come about, that it unhesitat¬ 
ingly, when it came into power, invested $3,000,000,000, and 
sacrificed lives innumerable, to decide the question without the 
solution of which no advance was possible, and the carrying on 
of the plan of the men who formed the Union would cease, and 
end in the old-world system of separate States and standing 
armies, pauper labor, and the continued settlement of all con¬ 
troversies by war. 

The Democratic influence has always been in that direction. 
It never would trust the people. 

It would not reduce postage for fear the receipts would not 
equal the expenditures of the post-office. It is impossible to 
estimate the benefits which have accrued to the Nation through 
this work, accomplished in spite of the opposition of the 
Democrats. They held that the great expense would deprive 
certain sections of mail facilities, as the government could not 
afford it. The friends of the measure held that the greater 
intelligence of the people of the free States would make up the 
deficiency by an increase in the number of letters. This puts 
fairly in contrast the two policies; one progressive, trusting 
and having confidence in the people; the other narrow, preju¬ 
diced, and judging the future by the long ago. 

The latter policy could no more have conceived and set up 
our present banking system than a mole could make a moun¬ 
tain, a system of which the London Times says: “The genius 
of man has never invented a better system of finance than the 
national banking system of the United States.” The Demo¬ 
crats in their tariff measures from 1846 to 1861, especially. 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 2gi 

discriminated against, rather than in favor of, the mechanical 
industries of the United States. 

The policy of granting land for homesteads and railroads 
has biiilt up the most magnificent empire in the world. But 
the last act of Buchanan was to veto a homestead bill, and one 
of the first acts of Lincoln was to sign one. The figures given 
of the empire of the Mississippi Valley and the great West, 
and, indirectly, of the whole country, are sufficient tribute to 
the policy of giving “ homes to the homeless” in the Home¬ 
stead Act. 

There are a thousand things as illustrative as the foregoing 
that we can hardly glance at in this sketch. One might as well 
attempt at a glance to note every brilliant point and com¬ 
bination in a mammoth kaleidoscope. 

Let us, however, illustrate one splendid point, and that is the 
treatment by the Republicans of the debt they incurred to 
“ solve the great problem.” The public debt reached the 
highest point in August, 1865, when it was $2,381,530,295. 
The general reader will better appreciate the vastness of this 
'sum when informed that it represents 70,156 tons of silver, 
which would make a procession of carts that would extend 
from Richmond, Va., to a point 12 miles north of Philadelphia, 
the distance it would thus cover being 266 miles. 

The interest-bearing debt is (not including the Pacific Rail¬ 
road bonds) $1,001,976,850, showing that the sum paid has been 
$1,379,553,445, or more than one half of the total amount, and 
representing 40,637 tons of silver dollars, which would extend 
154 miles, if packed in carts containing one ton each. 

Reducing these figures to a basis where they may be in¬ 
telligently comprehended, and that the rapidity with which the 
government has reduced its bonded debt maybe fully realized 
by the general reader, we find that the reduction has been at 
the average rate of $62,706,975 each year, $5,225,581 each 
month, $174,186 each day, $7258 each hour, and $120.47 
every minute of the entire time. 

Pursuing the calculations to the smallest divisible space of 
time, the bonded debt of the United States has been decreased 
at the rate of $2,007 every second, or for every swing of 


292 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


the pendulum, for the entire period from August 31, 1865, to 
July 31, 1887. This is an exhibition of recuperation and 
material progress on the part of the country, and of sterling 
honesty and integrity on the part of the government and peo¬ 
ple, that is without parallel in the world’s history. 

Under a revenue tariff in 1857 the United States Treasury 
was empty, while $400,000,000 in gold, taken from the mines of 
California in the preceding eight years, had been sent to the 
British Empire; in 1887 the silver and gold have accumulated 
at home. In 1857 our money was in the hands of foreigners, 
our manufactories were suspended, our public works retarded, 
our private enterprises of different kinds abandoned, and thou¬ 
sands of useful laborers thrown out of employment and re¬ 
duced to want. In 1887, under the system inaugurated by a 
Republican administration, the money remains in our own hands, 
our manufacturers are actively at work, private enterprises 
vigorously pushed, while the wage-workers are generally em¬ 
ployed at remunerative wages. 

Last year the expenses of Austria, England, France, Ger¬ 
many, Italy, Russia, and Spain were $22,000,000 more than 
their receipts ; our receipts were $94,000,000 more than our ex¬ 
penses. : A well-known author says “ The wealth of the United 
States is almost fabulous. It is more than enough to buy the 
Russian and Turkish empires, the kingdoms of Sweden and Nor¬ 
way, Denmark, and Italy together with Australia, South 
Africa, and all South America—lands, mines, cities, palaces, fac¬ 
tories, ships, flocks, herds, jewels, moneys, thrones, sceptres, 
diadems, and all,—the entire possessions of a hundred and 
seventy-seven million people. Great Britain is by far the 
richest nation of the Old World, and our wealth far exceeds 
hers.” 

Estimates made by Chas. S. Hill, statistician of the De¬ 
partment of State, in evidence taken by the Tariff Commission, 
are as follows : Population—United States, 50,150,000; Great 
Britain, 34,505,000; France, 37,166,000 ; Germany, 45,367,000 ; 
Russia, 82,400,000; Austria, 39,175,000. Wealth—United 
States, $55,000,000,000 ; Great Britain, $45,000,000,000; France, 
$40,000,000,000; Germany, $25,000,000,000; Russia, $15,000,- 


INTERNAL DEVEF.OPMENT. 


293 ^ 

cxXDjOOO; Austria, $14,000,000,000. Since that estimate our 
population has increased nearly ten million, and our wealth in 
proportion. 

There is nothing to prevent our country sweeping onward 
and upward to the triumphal position awaiting her, higher and 
broader, and more glorious than we, even with this showing, 
can conceive of, except some stupid and wicked policy that 
shall throw down all barriers and let the hordes of the world 
in to prey upon her magnificence, as the Goths poured in and- 
devastated the “ Eternal City.” 


THE CIVIL SERVICE. 


By Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, M. C. from Mass. 

Two great Democratic leaders introduced the system 
which made the civil .service of the country an election prize, 
and a Republican member of Congress struck the first blow 
against this system after forty years of habit had rooted it 
deeply in our political soil. Andrew Jackson practised and 
William L. Marcy formulated the doctrine that to the victors 
belong the spoils, and the two removals of John Quincy 
Adams’s entire term rose to two thousand in the first ten 
months of the rule of the hero of New Orleans. 

In 1867 Mr. Thomas Allen Jenckes of Rhode Island took up 
the subject of the civil service, and as chairman of the Joint 
Select Committee on Retrenchment made on May 25, 1868, an 
exhaustive report in which he showed the rapid growth of the 
civil service and depicted the evils and perils of the existing 
system of patronage and favoritism. The defects of the 
system had been brought to public notice years before, and 
had been attacked by Calhoun and Webster. But the only 
result of their efforts had been the introduction of “ pass- 
examinations,” which served perhaps to check the flow of 
absolute incompetency into the public service, but did not 
reach at all the root of the trouble. In the fierce struggle 
over slavery and in the shock of civil war minor questions 
of administration were lost sight of, and therefore the honor 
was reserved to Mr. Jenckes of being the first to take up the 
question thoroughly and scientifically, and to strike hard at 
the source of the existing evils. 

Congress paid little or no attention to Mr. Jenckes. So 
fixed had the patronage system become, that this attack upon 
it was regarded as the eccentricity of an amiable enthusiast, 
and the author of the report found himself for the moment 
in that unenviable and not uncommon position known as 
■“crying in the wilderness.” Mr. Jenckes, however, kept on, 

294 






eS 

















THE CIVIL SERVICE. 


295 


and outside of Congress that impalpable and all-powerful force 
known as public opinion began to awaken and take form and 
substance as to the civil service. So rapid was the growth of 
public sentiment, indeed, that President Grant in his message in 
1870 called the attention of Congress to the subject, and in 
March, 1871, Mr. Tucker had the pleasure of drawing an 
amendment to an appropriation bill which gave the President 
authority to establish regulations for the admission of candi¬ 
dates to the civil service and for ascertaining their efficiency, 
authorized him to appoint a commission, and appropriated 
$25,000 for that purpose. The commission was appointed, 
with Mr. George William Curtis as its chairman; rules were 
adopted, and open competitive examinations were established in 
the Departments at Washington, in the custom-house and partly 
in the post office at New York. 

At the end of two years the commission made a report 
showing by the testimony of the heads of Departments, and 
by other evidence, that the system had worked well despite 
many difficulties and obstacles, and that the service had been 
improved. Meantime Congress had given a second appropria¬ 
tion ; but when President Grant transmitted the report of the 
commission and asked for another appropriation, they saw that 
the movement had passed beyond the bounds of amiable 
eccentricity, and they refused to give any more money. The 
result was, of course, disastrous. It was impossible to carry 
on the work without money, and General Grant, disappointed 
in his own efforts and refused support by Congress, frankly 
abandoned the whole policy. Not being given to sham and 
pretense, he gave up the new scheme squarely and avowedly, 
and the civil service relapsed into patronage and pass-examin¬ 
ations. 

Outside of Washington, however, the agitation on this sub¬ 
ject went on with fresh and increased vigor, and the subject was 
pressed with especial energy at the time of the Republican Con¬ 
vention in 1876. The result was seen in the fact that President 
Hayes favored the reform strongly in his letter of acceptance, 
and urged suitable legislation in his inaugural and in his mes¬ 
sages. Congress took no action, but under the administration 


296 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


of President Hayes the system of competitive examination for 
filling vacancies in the civil service was introduced in the Interior 
Department, and in the custom-house and post-office at New 
York. This was a purely administrative measure, and had no 
greater vitality than came from the good-will and the belief in 
the reform of persons who happened to be in office. Two 
facts, however, were demonstrated : one, that without the 
sanction of law the new system merely as an administrative 
measure could have no enduring strength; the other, that the 
system worked well in practice, tending to improve the quality 
of office-holders and greatly relieving the political pressure upon 
the appointing officers. 

Meantime the outside agitation continued. Associations 
for the promotion of the new system were formed in different 
parts of the country and rapidly increased in number and in 
membership. Both parties declared for the reform in their 
platforms, and public opinion on the question gathered form 
and consistency. The efforts of the supporters of the reform 
became more concentrated and direct, and aimed at the enact¬ 
ment of laws which should regulate and fix the conditions of 
obtaining places under government. 

The whole movement received, however, an enormous and 
tragic impulse from the murder of President Garfield by a 
man known to the public only as a disappointed office-seeker. 
Bills were introduced into Congress with a view of changing the 
existing system, but no action was taken upon them. The 
elections of 1882 gave, however, such vivid examples in certain 
instances of the activity of the civil-service reformers, and of a 
strong public opinion aroused by the crime of Guiteau, that 
Congress was spurred to immediate action. President Arthur 
had already pledged his support to the reform, and had asked for 
an appropriation ; and now Congress took up the bill drawn by 
Mr. Dorman B. Eaton and introduced by Mr. Pendleton, whose 
name it bears, and passed it rapidly through all its stages. It 
was signed and became a law on the i6th of January, 1883. 
President Arthur at once appointed a commission which was. 
headed by Mr. Dorman B. Eaton and composed of well-known 
friends of the reform. The law applied, roughly speaking, to 


THE CIVIL SERVICE. 


297 

clerks in the Washington Departments, and in custom-houses 
and post-offices of a certain size. It went into immediate 
operation; it was vigorously and honestly sustained by Presi¬ 
dent Arthur, and was thoroughly enforced by the various col¬ 
lectors, postmasters, and heads of departments. It speedily 
proved that the new system was a success, and where honestly 
enforced improved the service and did away with many of the 
evils of patronage. 

Such was the condition of the civil-service question when 
the Republican party went out of power and when the Dem¬ 
ocrats came in in 1885. A great step had been taken and a 
great victory won. The principles of the new system which 
require the removal of the civil service from politics had been 
enacted into law. It will be observed that the first attack upon 
the patronage system was made by a Republican representa¬ 
tive. The first message on the subject was written and the 
first cornmission appointed by a Republican President. Another 
Republican President was the first to put the new system in 
force as an administrative measure. The first civil-service law 
was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a third 
Republican President, who honestly enforced it and gave it suc¬ 
cessful existence. There is no intention of implying by this 
that the Republican party was free from shortcomings in re¬ 
gard to the question of civil-service reform, or that all Repub¬ 
licans have been or are now civil-service reformers. The 
subject was a new one, and when brought forward by Mr. 
Jenckes was little understood, and was at variance with the 
traditions and practices of nearly forty years. The Republican 
party was the first to learn the lesson of the times in this re¬ 
spect ; almost all those actively engaged in promoting the 
reform were Republicans, and a large majority of the party 
soon became and have remained steadfast friends of the reform. 
Some Democratic leaders and a small minority of the party 
were honestly favorable to the reform, but the great majority 
of the Democratic party were either indifferent or openly 
hostile to it. The proof of this lies in the fact, which can 
neither be denied nor explained away, that every affirmative 
act in advancing the reform, as a national policy, has been 


.298 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


the work of a Republican administration and a Republican Con¬ 
gress. During this period, too, and under Republican adminis¬ 
trations political assessments on office-holders were given up 
and the civil servants were, in conformity with the spirit of the 
law, withdrawn from the business of political management. 

It now remains to review the history of the reform since the 
Democratic party came into power. In the campaign of 1884 
the question of civil-service reform played a conspicuous part in 
the Northern States, where alone elections turn on questions of 
public policy. Mr. Cleveland as Governor of New York had 
shown himself, despite some inconsistencies, a friend of the re¬ 
form. His election was therefore urged more strenuously on 
this ground than on any other. A majority of the members 
of the civil-service associations were Republicans who left their 
party on account of the nomination of Mr. Blaine, and the same 
was true of the newspapers that most constantly advocated the 
reform. The “ independents ” both in the press and on the 
stump gave such small portion of their time and attention as 
was not devoted to purely personal politics and violent abuse 
of Mr. Blaine to urging the election of Mr. Cleveland, as in 
the direct interest of civil-service reform. Mr. Cleveland was 
elected, his term has nearly expired, and we are now in a 
position to see just what has been accomplished on this im¬ 
portant question. In his letter of acceptance Mr. Cleveland 
pledged himself to the reform system of civil service, and de¬ 
nounced in the strongest terms the evils of the spoils system. 
After his election he wrote to Mr. George William Curtis : 

‘‘ I am not unmindful of the fact to which you refer, that 
many of our citizens fear that the recent party change in the 
national executive may demonstrate that the abuses which 
have grown up in the civil service are ineradicable. I know 
that they are deeply rooted and that the spoils system has been 
supposed to be intimately related to success in the maintenance 
of party organization, and I am not sure that all those who 
profess to be the friends of this reform will stand firmly among 
its advocates when they find it obstructing their way to patron¬ 
age and -place. But fully appreciating the trust committed to 


THE CIVIL SERVICE. 


299 

my charge, no such consideration shall cause a relaxation on 
my part of an earnest effort to enforce this law. 

“ If I were addressing none but party friends, I should deem 
it entirely proper to remind them that, though the coming ad¬ 
ministration is to be Democratic, a due regard for the people’s 
interest does not permit faithful party work to be always re¬ 
warded by appointment to office; and to say to them that 
while Democrats may expect all proper consideration, selec¬ 
tions for office, not embraced within the civil-service rules, will 
be based upon sufficient inquiry as to fitness, instituted by 
those charged with that duty, rather than upon persistent im¬ 
portunity or self-solicited recommendations on behalf of candi¬ 
dates for appointment.” 

In his inaugural address delivered March 4, 1885, he made 
the following declarations of his views as to reform: 

“ The people demand reform in the administration of the 
government and the application of business principles to public 
affairs. As a means to this end, civil-service reform should be 
in good faith indorsed. Our citizens have the right to protec¬ 
tion from the incompetency of public employes who hold their 
places solely as the reward of partisan service, and from the 
corrupting influence of those who promise and the vicious 
methods of those who expect such rewards; and those who 
worthily seek employment have the right to insist that merit 
and competency shall be recognized instead of party subser¬ 
viency or the surrender of honest political belief.” 

In his first annual message to Congress, delivered December 
8, 1885, he said : 

“ I am inclined to think that there is no sentiment more 
general in the minds of the people of our country than a con¬ 
viction of the correctness of the principle upon which the law 
enforcing civil-service reform is based. 

“ Experience in its administration will probably suggest 
amendment of the methods of its execution, but I venture to 
hope that we shall never again be remitted to the system which 
distributes public positions purely as rewards for partisan ser¬ 
vice. Doubts may well be entertained whether our govern¬ 
ment could survive the strain of a continuation of this system. 


300 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


which upon every change of administration inspires an immense 
army of claimants for office to lay siege to the patronage of 
the Government, engrossing the time of public officers with 
their importunities, spreading abroad the contagion of their 
disappointment, and filling the air with the tumult of their dis¬ 
content. 

“ The allurements of an immense number of offices and 
places exhibited to the voters of the land, and the promise of 
their bestowal in recognition of partisan activity, debauch the 
suffrage and rob political action of its thoughtful and delibera¬ 
tive character. The evil would increase with the multiplication 
of offices consequent upon our extension, and the mania for 
office-holding, growing from its indulgence, would pervade our 
population so generally that patriotic purpose, the support of 
principle, the desire for the public good, and solicitude for the 
Nation’s welfare would be nearly banished from the activity of 
our party contests and cause them to degenerate into ignoble, 
selfish, and disgraceful struggles for the possession of office and 
public place. 

“ Civil-service reform enforced by law came none too soon 
to check the progress of demoralization. 

“ One of its effects, not enough regarded, is the freedom it 
brings to the political action of those conservative and sober 
men who, in fear of the confusion and risk attending an arbi¬ 
trary and sudden change in all the public offices with a change 
of party rule, cast their ballots against such a change.” 

He wrote in the same spirit to Mr. Eaton, the head of the 
civil-service commission, and spoke in like fashion in an inter¬ 
view in the Boston Herald in January, 1885. The most bitter 
opponents could find no fault with these utterances, except to 
say, perhaps, “ Methinks he doth protest too much.” Let us 
now see how these noble declarations have been carried out 
in practice. At first the new administration moved slowly, 
and retained here and there some prominent Republican 
officer whose name was identified with civil-service reform. 
Thereupon premature paeans of praise went up from the civil- 
service associations, who informed every one that at last they 
had a true civil-service-reform administration. The paeans con- 


THE CIVIL SERVICE. 


301 


tinued for a long time,—they have only recently been hushed 
into silence, but the policy of the administration quickly 
changed as the Democratic party became settled in the gov- 
€1 nment. The first open attack on the reform was the circular 
of Mr. Vilas asking for charges of “offensive partisanship” 
against postmasters, so that he might have an excuse for their 
removal. No more petty and more miserable sham to effect a 
mean purpose was ever employed for the sake of seizing the 
spoils of office. The President, however, was silent, the paeans 
of the professional civil-service reformers still rose to heaven, 
and the changes began. It would extend this article unduly 
to follow out the work in detail. 

The following table made up to June ii, 1887, which I bor¬ 
row, together with many other suggestions, from the very able 
speech of Senator Hale upon the civil service in January last, 
shows compactly the work of a little more than two years. 


Offices. 


Presidential postmasters (estimated), . , 
Fourth-class postmasters (estimated).., 

Foreign ministers . 

Secretaries of legation.. 

Consuls. 

Collectors of customs. 

Surveyors of customs.. 

Naval officers of customs. 

Appraisers, all grades. 

Superintendents of mints and assayers 
Assistant treasurers at subtreasuries... 

Collectors of internal revenue. 

Inspectors of steam-vessels. 

District attorneys. 

Marshals. 

Territorial judges. 

Territorial governors. 

Pension agents . 

Surveyors-general. 

Local land officers.. 

Indian inspectors and special agents... 

Indian agents... 

Special agents, General Land Office..., 


Whole 
number of 
places. 

Places filled 
by Cleve¬ 
land, 

2,359 

2,000 

52,609 

40,000 

33 

32 

21 

16 

219 

138 

III 

100 

33 

33 

6 

6 

36 

34 

13 

II 

9 

9 

85 

84 

II 

8 

70 

65 

70 

64 

30 

22 

9 

9 

18 

16 

16 

16 

224 

190 

10 

9 

59 

51 

83 

79 

56,134 

42,992 


Total 








































302 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


On July 1st of the same year the Civil Service Record of 
Boston announced that the percentage of removals in the un¬ 
classified service of the Interior Department had risen to 90 
per cent. This may have been an extreme case at that time^ 
because the head of that department, Mr. Lamar, had been 
strongly eulogizing Mr. Calhoun for his opposition to the 
spoils system, but there can be no doubt that in the year which 
has elapsed since this table was prepared changes have gone 
on with accelerating rapidity. The best estimates put the 
number of changes at this time (May, 1888) at 50,000; and 
when we add the petty officers dependent on these 50,000 
thus changed directly by the administration, we have a total of 
at least 100,000 offices which have been taken as spoils by the 
new reform government in three years. There are probably not 
5000 officers outside the classified service who still hold over 
from the former administrations. 

The present reform administration has carried out the spoils 
doctrine with a thoroughness that would have satisfied Jackson 
himself. The law still protects the 15,000 classified offices it 
was designed to cover, but in some cases it has been evaded, 
and in others so notoriously disobeyed as to call for an investi¬ 
gation. 

The results of this greedy haste in seizing upon the offices 
are apparent already, although the time which has elapsed since 
the work began is so short. The Maryland appointments have 
been so scandalous, and the whole service in that State has 
been so debauched, that it has attracted the attention of the 
Nation. In Indiana it has been almost as bad, and in that State 
the public service in all its branches there has been seriously 
crippled. In Chicago and Philadelphia scandals in the govern¬ 
ment service have called for official investigation, and the New 
York custom-house has greatly deteriorated. Throughout the 
country and in the diplomatic service there have been appoint¬ 
ments which are in the highest degree discreditable, and show 
that the spoils system when carried out in the name of reform 
is, like most hypocrisies, much worse than the vice itself prac¬ 
tised without disguise. Of the first seven territorial judges 
selected by Mr. Cleveland, five within a week were publicly de- 


THE CIVIL SERVICE. 


303 

nouncedas “morally and professionally unfit,” and three of the 
five have since been retired for misconduct. 

A list of objectionable appointments made during the first 
half of the Presidential term showed that fifty-nine have been 
of persons who have been convicted or indicted for various 
crimes—ten have been concerned in political crimes, three de¬ 
serters and one expelled from the United States Senate, three 
disqualified from office for violation of oaths, three, the tools of 
persons so disreputable that they could not hold office, and six 
more, of whom three were appointed to enforce the internal- 
revenue laws, were either themselves liquor-sellers or attorneys 
of liquor-sellers. To these are to be added sixty-one notorious 
political hacks. 

In a word, the spoils system in its worst form is once more 
supreme in the patronage offices, and the civil-service law is im¬ 
perfectly enforced in the classified service. These facts are 
beyond denial. The Maryland and Indiana civil-service asso¬ 
ciations with entire honesty and courage denounced the course 
of the administration more than two years ago. Very recently 
such extreme Cleveland partisans as Mr. Curtis and Mr. Godkin 
have admitted in their newspapers that in civil-service reform 
the administration has failed, and on May 7th, the New York 
civil-service association declared that “ in those positions not 
covered by the civil-service rules the changes have gone on with 
such steadiness that the hopes cherished during the early days 
of the administration of a substantial gain during its term in 
the general stability of the service have not been justified by 
the results.” 

The only offset to all this has been the repeal of the tenure 
of office act by the 49th Congress through the efforts of Sena¬ 
tor Hoar and Governor Long, who introduced and suceessfully 
advocated bills for that purpose in the House and Senate. 

There has been also great injury to the cause of the reform 
in other and more general ways. Headquarters were opened 
in Washington and money collected by fifty-cent subscriptions 
for the benefit of the Democratic campaign in New York last 
fall. Mr. Cleveland set the example by sending a check to 
the Democratic State Committee, and by writing a letter in be- 


304 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


half of one of the Democratic candidates. It is the first time, I 
believe, that a President has so far forgotten the dignity of his 
great office as to interfere publicly in a local election of a 
district attorney. This general demoralization grows, of course, 
by what it feeds upon, and this spring an order has gone out 
from one of the heads of bureaus in Washington directing each 
postmaster to return the names and party relations of each 
voter in his town or city. This converts the whole vast body 
of postmasters into a great canvassing committee, and makes 
these public officers a part of the Democratic machine. 

The result has been seen in Democratic conventions, both 
State and National, filled and controlled by Federal office-hold¬ 
ers. 

Civil-service reform has been grievously injured by Demo¬ 
cratic ascendency, and by the insincerity of the Cleveland wor¬ 
shipers in the reform associations. It will survive the blow if 
the present administration is not re-elected, for the new system 
rests on the sound business principle of taking the routine 
offices of the government out of politics. That is the whole 
of civil-service reform. Competitive examinations are merely 
the means and not the end of the reform. The purpose is 
to substitute some fair, impartial, and mechanical test for 
favoritism and patronage, which are both thoroughly un-Ameri¬ 
can and mere survivals and imitations of the fashions of aristo¬ 
cratic and despotic governments. Progress toward these ob¬ 
jects must be made by legislation. An individual in high 
administrative office can throw his influence for civil-service re¬ 
form, but it may well be doubted if any President or head of 
Department can administer patronage offices otherwise than by 
patronage. If Mr. Cleveland had frankly said that he would 
administer the patronage offices by patronage wisely and hon¬ 
estly bestowed, and the classified service according to law, it 
would have been difficult to assail his position. But he made 
loud and high-sounding pledges and promises as to the civil 
.service generally, and has broken them all without withdrawing 
one of his pretentious declarations. At the same time he has 
.allowed the law to be weakened and evaded, political assess- 


THE CIVIL SERVICE. 305 

ments to be renewed, and civil-service officers to become a con¬ 
trolling faction in the political machine. 

The Republican party is pledged to extend the reform. 
The Democratic National convention passed this great ques¬ 
tion by in contemptuous silence. The Republican party has 
again adopted the resolution of 1884 which was drawn by Mr. 
George William Curtis. Thus the issue is fairly and distinctly 
made up. 

Every solid step thus far taken has been by a Republican Con¬ 
gress or a Republican administration. The only chance for the 
extension of the principles of the reform lies in the return of 
the Republican party to power. Whatever its shortcomings, 
it is the author of all that has been practically accomplished 
for the new system, and to it we must look for further progress 
in the future by means of additional legislation. 

The following table shows the manner in which the Repub¬ 
lican party as compared with the Democratic party collected 
and disbursed the national revenues. 


RATIOS OF DEMOCRATIC DEFALCATIONS COMPARED WITH REPUBLICAN HONESTY. 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


(/i 

Z 

o 

< 

D 

H 

Oh 

< 

U 

(x) 

Qi 


</i 

C/) 

o 




C (U 

3 > 

<! c 


♦ 

§ 


O' mvo 00 O' CJ M 

O 

00 

O' VO H VO '^•G 



m M m CO m t>* 


o 

H moo m 04 g 




W -^00 VO C^fO 


00 


o 


rOHVO 
O M 

lovo O w O O' 
cT fo cT ^0^00 hT 

VO ro t^vo W 00 00 ro 
ir)t*%0 c>%cO'^0 t’O 


O 




qnVO VO m Q 
O' ►- N O O 00 
w lo CO w m a 


VO 

fN. 

VO 

mo ^ cc'm 

m 

m 

CO 


M t>. ^00 00 m 

04 

M 

v^ 

vq^ 

oqco M O' moq 

q. 

0 

CO 

M 

d ^*'•00 04 O' 

d 

O' 


VO 

m 0 CO 0 w 04 

CO 

m 


00 

04 mvo O' O'VO 

vq 


CO 

d 

od r^vd d CO 

d 


04 

CO 

0 O'OO M m 

M 




VO VO CO 0 00 CO 

CO 


O'OO O 


VO 

fO 


t>.vO 

H 

XTi 




0 Q On H 

t-s. M \0 VO 00 On M 

C 4 

O' 

CO 

o 

M 

m 

S' 

04 On O'OO VO 

TO 0 00 O' On fN. 

TO 

VO 


(/) 

V 

O' '50 "i^VO On CO M 

0 ^ 

O' 

TO 


O' H O' m rfVO 

m 


0 m CO M O' m M 

#« 

CO 

m 

04 


d d 0 d 04 d 

d 

O 

{/) 

m CO 0 O' <N 00 VO 


VO 

CO 

H 

VO m 0 04 

TO 


04 covo M N TO O'* 

CO 

m 

On 

TO 

M VO 04 VO VO 

TO 

H 

o 

^ 04 CO CO CO 

H 

#•» 

M 

H 

r* ^ 

C 4 04 On 04 

od 

CO 


O' O' 
N CO 

00 

f »• 

M m 

TT 

#» 

N H 


t>* t>s 

mvo 

H IT) 
^ ♦» 
M 00 
00 iO 

O'CO 
►h O' 
tN. in 

'It' M 

m 


< 

h 

O 

h 



(/) 

0 ^ 

c/) 

o 

•J 


t 

5 ^ 

^ a> 

5® 


ONm 04 t^ 04 TOMm On tJ-vOTOmTOhQ 

H 

On 04 

VO COOO C ^04 04 COw CO COVO TOO '^'^040 

VO 

'd’VO 

O’^woNComOM 0 00 mvo h 

M 

TO 

^ M H 04 M 




tN. O ^vo i/^ O'VO fO 
Oimm'^^cow com 
O'OO ^ moo ci VO 

cT CO m cT covo O' 
COO'D mo'M o O' 
^ w cooo m cooo 

H N N W 


04 VO 


O' c 

> O'OO 

Q 

04 04 


> •'50 CO 

O 0 

00 O' 

CO M 

On C 

) 0 ^ 

On 


CO 

O' 


moo 
t'*-vO 
00 w 


M O' m 
m 

O' 04 VO O' 


VO M VO m t>. ^vo ^ ''t* 

M 00 0 mvo O' 00 O' 

<^00 voMo^c^mo I-* ^ 

CO moo t'N CO t'N. O' m 
m O moo O' N CO O O 

M N M N H H M 


O 00 CO t^vo '•J' 
t>. cooo m n CO 
CO 9 f 

moo i-T rC 
00 C 4 VO O'OO m 
c< covo 00 C 4 m 

^ CO m M 


O' 


CO 

VO 

O' 

o" 

M 

VO 

'«t 

CO 

VO 


04 

O' 

N 

04 m 

04 M 

M 

CO 

On 

TO O' 


VO 

O' 

m 04 

04 ■'J- 

■^00 

m 

VO TO 

04 

M 

M 

TO TO 

0 VO 

m 

CO 

TO 

C 4 m 

CO 

04 

m 

TO 04 

O' O'OO 

tH 

d 

doo 

CO 

H 

TO 

On O' O'OO 

CO 


04 

O' 04 

H 

On 


VO C 4 

moo 



m 

00 vq 

H 

M 

H 

»-* oi VO M 

w 


od 

00 d 








04 

hH 


CO O 

CO 

C'*. 

<^V 0 ^ 

d 

CO O 
W 

M m 


•J 

< 

H 

O 

H 



CO 

a> 

(/) 

(/i 

o 

hJ 


CO 

a 

'S 

u 

0 ) 

Pi 


•o 

. 2 ^ 

i; ^ 
cu 


t 

> 

u 

V 

C/D 


V 

u 


04 w m 0 

04 

0 CO M 

TO 

TO 

o 

m 04 

0 CO 

w d 

O' 

O' 


On O' VO M 

m 

- 5 ^- m o 

VO 

o 

CO 

tN.'O 

t^vo 

04 C 


0 

04 










• 


• 

I 

z 

H 

CO 

CO m CO 

CO 


H 



12 ; 


04 



M O' O 
m -^vo 
m oj M 

d d tC 

M ^00 

w N 


mvo CO t'xoo 

C>. mcXD Ci 
O' O' O' CO CO 

d* d d d d 

O' <N CO M O' 
W VO CO CO 


M 00 t>H r^ Tf moo 

M t>.tH\o mt^’^f 
ts.-^O'mO'O t^m 

cd moo* vd dod dod 

''t'OO CO H CO 

'^ 0 C' 404 VO 00 >-O' 

vovooovdoo dmd 
m-^Ovo t^ovmw 

^ M M N H 


T»- 

TO 

04 

0 

o 

M 

0 

m 

vo^ 

vd 

d 

00 *^ 

CO 

m 

0 

l-N 

oq 

q 

vo" 

M 

M 

M 

0 

HI 

M 

04 

04 


O' O' tN .00 Tj- 
W CO CO N o 
00 VO CO O' 

d d dvdod d 

tv mvo *-1 O' tN. 

M CO ^ covo O' 

d d d d 00*^ 00 

00 M M 0* 

covo O CO 




m M 


00 

M 

M* 

m 


C4 

oo*' 




00 ^ 00 00 00 ^00 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^00 w 


M 

O' 

0 


CO 

CO 

M 


m 

0 

m 

CO 

o 

tN 

Q 

Q 

O' 

04 

CO V 

In. 

04 

m 

q 

M 

04 

5 

0 

m 


M C 

CO 

0^ 

CO 

d 

od 

VO*' 

CO 

■^00 

d 

do 



o' 

04 

M 

^N 

(H 

O' 

0 

o 


O' 

C^j 

VO 



04 

04 

H 

m 

m 


q 

On 

04 







d 

H 

od 

d- 

Tj- 


z 

o 

H 

c 

Oi 

h 

to 


Q 

< 


C 

o 

he 

15 

i/i 


c 

o 

to 

u 

V 


c 

o 

tA 


(A 

6 

'U 


G 

C 

c/5 

U 


C 

^ - 
V- C 

3 O 

c fc 

rt 




c; 




c 

fd 

c 
a; a 
oxz 


c 

(A 

c 
c S 2 

LL 


O 

cj 


H-i ^ 

.OX 


O' 

t'x 

00 

¥-i 


o 

M CO 
TO ^ 

H C 

3 

O^ 

^ o 

t) *-> 

c ^ 

3 M 

*^00 

O *- 


u 

.2 ^ 

Im 2 

cu^ 




















































































THE NEW SOUTH. 


By Hon, John S. Wise, of Virginia. 

“ Out of the eater came forth meat, 

And out of the strong came forth sweetness. ” 

The earliest recorded triumph of Samson was when he went 
down into the vineyards of Timnath in the land of the Philis¬ 
tines and, unarmed, slew a young roaring lion. The story runs 
that after a time Samson returned to view the carcass of the lion, 
and behold there was a swarm of bees and honey within the 
carcass. This was the occasion of his giving forth, at his wed¬ 
ding-feast, the famous riddle which heads this article. 

The earliest recorded triumph of the Republican party was 
its battle with, and conquest of, that young roaring lion, African 
Slavery. If Republicanism could be personified and return to 
behold the carcass of the victim in the South, it would, like 
Samson of old, find that carcass filled with a swarm of busy 
bees, and teeming with the honey of diversified industries un¬ 
known to it in the dreamy days of slavery. 

I am not sure that my simile is original. It seems to me 
that some one else has used the same. Who, if any one, I do 
not know. But whether it be original or not, I will appropri¬ 
ate it. 

Two great ideas were born at the same time that our 
Federal Government was created by the Convention of 1787. 
One was the National Idea, the other the Federal or States- 
rights Idea. Very soon the advocates of the national idea 
adopted the name of Federalists, and the States-rights advocates 
became known as Republicans or Democrats. From that time 
until this, under changing names, the two ideas have been re¬ 
spectively the basis of party organization in the two leading 
parties, although the Federalists have at last assumed the name 
of Republicans, and the States-rights advocates have fallen 
back upon the simple name of Democracy. 

Both parties, as they were originally formed, professed faith 

3^1 


3o8 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


in and attachment to the Union, but in the “ strict construction” 
party at the outset was to be found every man who opposed 
the formation of the Union. And in both have been found, 
from the first, men who have pressed their respective theories 
far beyond the bounds of reason. But a study of the history 
of the Federalist party plainly discloses that in its struggles for 
supremacy it has always shown more regard for the preserva¬ 
tion of the autonomy of the States than has been shown for the 
preservation of the Union by those who have put the idea of 
States rights above that of Union. 

In their origin these two conflicting ideas were not sectional. 
Ultra Federalists were abundant in the South, and theoretical 
secessionists and nullifiers were to be found in the North. In 
time, local interests and the surroundings of men, those most 
powerful of all molders of opinion, consigned the national 
idea to the domain of the North, and the States-rights doctrine 
recognized the South as its true habitat. Negro slavery pro¬ 
duced this territorial array of opinion. As it, almost alone, gave 
rise to the supremacy of the “ strict-construction ” theory in the 
South, I propose to show that with the abolition of slavery has 
died almost every reason why the South should longer adhere 
to that idea, and that, following the abolition of slavery, many 
reasons have arisen why the South should, above any other 
section of our country, become the advocate of a liberal con¬ 
struction of Federal powers. 

In the Federal Convention of 1787, when parties first 
became arrayed upon these ideas, the Southern States had a 
powerful and eloquent representation favoring the national 
idea. The conception of one Incorporate Union in lieu of the 
old Articles of Confederation originated no less with Messrs. 
Randolph and Madison of Virginia than with Mr. Hamilton 
and other Northern men. Mr. Randolph’s plan, known as the 
“ Virginia plan,” which was first adopted by the convention and 
afterwards voted down, conferred much more power on the 
Federal Government than any of the other plans submitted. It 
was supported by Southern representatives, and its opponents 
were from Connecticut, New Jersey, and other Northern 
States. They insisted that it was too national. 


THE NEW SOUTH. 


309 


The plan ultimately agreed upon was that presented by Mr. 
Pinckney of South Carolina. Hamilton and Jay of the North, 
Washington and Madison of the South, became its most 
eloquent advocates. The Union was as much the work of the 
South as of the North. The most splendid appeal for the per¬ 
petuity of the Federal idea to be found in our language is the 
Farewell Address of George Washington, a Southern man. And 
this feeling was most natural. The South had played a con¬ 
spicuous part, not only in the achievement of our liberties, but 
in all the proceedings which brought about the Government of 
the United States. Her representatives aided in drafting our 
Constitution, and counseled its adoption. Her people rejoiced 
in the consummation of the scheme, and re-echoed the senti¬ 
ments of Washington that it was a compact of perpetual union. 
At that day slavery had not become the all-controlling power, 
and sectionalism, its legitimate concomitant, had not taken 
absolute possession, as it did later, of the advocates and 
opponents of the States-rights theory. 

Mr. Jefferson of Virginia, the ablest and most powerful 
strict-constructionist of his day, was an abolitionist. Yet at the 
same time he was a man whose views on the affairs of the 
Union were as broad as those of the most pronounced Fed¬ 
eralist. The Federal idea never had a more eloquent ex¬ 
pounder than Virginia’s John Marshall, Chief-Justice of the 
United States. Indeed, Virginia was the natural home of a 
love of the Union and of those views which favored abroad and 
liberal construction of the Constitution. 

The slavery question became dominant very soon after the 
Union was formed. It arose with more violence at the admis¬ 
sion of each new State, and every agitation intensified the 
sectional feeling. The South was wedded to slavery. It felt 
that slavery was safe so long as Federal power was limited and 
circumscribed and the absolute control of domestic affairs left 
to the States. It felt that the one danger to slavery from 
Federal power was from the free States acquiring a preponder¬ 
ance of power in Congress through the admission of new States, 
which would enable them to pass laws enlarging Federal juris¬ 
diction. 


310 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


The North, on the other hand, chafed, and was indignant 
that the power and growth of the Nation should be retarded, 
and all things subordinated to, and allowed to advance only at 
even pace with, slavery. The slave power was in the ascendant 
for half a century, and right jealously and dictatorially did it 
hug the States-rights idea as the sheet-anchor of slavery. 

It is proper enough for philanthropists to say that slavery 
was wrong and was a curse. Grant it. But until human nature 
is framed upon a higher model than that of the present, the 
man who is hereditary owner of slaves, in the enjoyment of the 
luxury which their possession brings to him, will not see it 
either as a sin or as a curse, and will not voluntarily yield up 
his wealth to an abstract principle. 

If the climate of the North had suited slavery, and the con¬ 
ditions of the two sections, as they were, had been reversed, I 
have no doubt in my own mind that the political views of the 
people of the two sections on slavery, and their consequent 
States-rights notions, would have been fevefsed also.* We are 
very much alike, and all creatufes of circumstances governed 
by our surroundings. None of us are as much better than the 
others as we are wont to think ourselves. 

Whether slavery was right or wrong, it was very comfort¬ 
able for the slave-owner, and he was the only one in that sec¬ 
tion who had a voice as to whether it should be abolished. It 
is all very well to say he pursued a ruinous system of agricul¬ 
ture. Grant that he did not make as much as he might have 
done. Still he made enough to support his slaves, and furnish 
himself in luxury. Only one family was to be made luxurious 
where many contributed to that end. It was easy to waste a 
great deal and yet do that. We may say that he had no 
schools. He did not want them. White population was sparse 
even if he had desired to educate his “ poor white” dependents. 
He did not. He owned the slaves, and it was better for his 
interests that poor whites should not be so elevated as to be¬ 
come independent of him, their patron. As for his sons and 
daughters, his wealth enabled him to employ the best of private 
tutors, and to send them to Europe and the universities. 

We may say that he had no manufactures. He could not 


THE NEW SOUTH. 


3II 

afford to have them. It was bad policy to cultivate slave in¬ 
telligence to the point of making a slave a skilled manuhicturer, 
and it was worse policy to introduce free skilled labor into a 
slave community. This made the people of the slave-holding 
States free-traders of necessity. When the American system 
was first propounded, Mr. Calhoun was very much captivated 
with it. He knew his community were great cotton-producers, 
and he, at first, conceived that under a system of protection 
they might become great manufacturers also. But in a little 
while Mr. Calhoun perceived that slavery and manufactories 
could not coexist. He realized that agriculture, and agricul¬ 
ture alone, was the true field for slave labor, and *so he aban¬ 
doned his protection ideas and became a free-trader of the most 
pronounced sort, on the erroneous theory that a purely agri¬ 
cultural community, as his must remain, derived no benefit 
from the protection of manufactured goods. Thus it was that 
slavery warped all ideas of public policy by its overwhelming 
pressure. 

We may say that the old South had no railroads and means 
of intercommunication. She did not want them. It was bet¬ 
ter to incur difficulties in moving her crops away than to have 
such commercial facilities as would fill the land with prying 
eyes of strangers, and the atmosphere with the spirit of the 
outside world of freedom. 

To concede power in the Federal Government to aid in 
education, to improve rivers and harbors, to build railroads 
and make internal improvements, was to cultivate a notion of 
vigor and vitality of Federal power always liable to culminate 
in encroachments dangerous to slavery. Was the Southern 
slave-holder, then, simple in his fierce contention for strict con¬ 
struction ? No. Far from it. He had a possession of untold 
wealth and luxury; one that anybody holding it would have 
struggled to retain. And yet a delicate and dangerous posses¬ 
sion, liable to be wrenched from him at any time by the jeal¬ 
ousy or philanthropy of others. He was, numerically speaking, 
in a pitiable minority. And yet, surrounded by all sorts of 
dangers and difficulties, without any real moral support, with 
all the odds against him, he managed to maintain his suprem- 


312 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


acy for three quarters of a century, and died with his boots on 
fighting for its continuance. It is becoming common nowa¬ 
days to speak of the old slave-holder as if he was not shrewd. 
His hospitality, his luxury, his arrogance, his bravery—all these 
are admitted. But by many he is classed as weak, thriftless, 
and impracticable. 

I hold that no idea is more radically erroneous. The old 
slave-holder was as shrewd as any down-east Yankee. He held 
himself together surprisingly long in a difficult situation, and 
displayed a keen judgment all the while as to which was the 
path of danger and which of safety. He declared the largest 
dividend on the smallest capital ever declared by any one in 
business, and is entitled for his long-successful battle against 
overwhelming numbers and prejudices to be classed with the 
shrewdest and most successful of our people. 

The question remaining to be determined now is whether 
the Southern people will, in their new situation, show the same 
shrewdness and adaptability since the abolition of slavery that 
they showed while defending it. 

Their being Democrats, strict-constructionists, and free-trad¬ 
ers during the days of slavery showed their keen appreciation 
of the demands and necessities of slavery. Their alliance with 
the Democracy immediately after the conclusion of the war 
was not only their natural position as against the Republican 
party, which had freed their slaves, but was brought about and 
encouraged by a feeling (in fact false, however) that the Democ¬ 
racy, being out of power, had been in some sort their friends 
during the struggle. The feeling that they had something to 
expect from a triumph of the Democracy over their old enemy, 
the Republican party, was hard to argue against, until the 
Democracy triumphed and the New South realized by actual 
experience how little that undefined something was. 

The South is not Democratic because of any innate jealousy 
and antagonism towards the Union. 

Whatever prejudice existed there at any time against the 
Union was the result of apprehension for the safety of their 
property in slaves. In the old States which were of the original 
thirteen the spirit of secession and disunion was against every 


THE NEW SOUTH. 


313 


tradition and teaching, and only stimulated by the presence of 
slavery. Even that was not strong enough to destroy the feel¬ 
ing altogether. In the Southern States, bought with Federal 
money from European despots, or conquered with the blood 
of the Nation, it is almost impossible to conceive how, even 
under the influence of selfish fear and alarm for their slave 
property, they could discover a right to “ resume sovereignty ” 
as against the United States, when they never possessed any 
until the Federal Government breathed the breath of life into 
their nostrils. 

But, without discussing the reasoning upon which they 
acted, there is little doubt that their action, hostile to the Fed¬ 
eral idea, was begotten solely by slavery, and that with slavery 
gone forever the New South is freed from the only malign 
influence which could make the citizen of Virginia, Carolina, 
or Louisiana less loyal to, or proud of, or broad in his construc¬ 
tion of the Federal Constitution than the citizen of Massachu¬ 
setts or of Pennsylvania. 

The Democratic party cannot, therefore, in the future, as 
in the days of slavery, count confidently upon unanimity of 
advocacy of strict-construction views in the South ; nor need 
the Republican party despair of a deep Federal feeling there. 
On the contrary, the tide is setting strongly towards Federal 
ideas, and the once insuperable barrier of slavery no longer 
restrains its flow. 

The New South is really Republican. I do not refer to the 
fact that if the vote were honestly counted it would show Re¬ 
publican results. I mean that the men who are voting with, 
and assenting to the stuffing of ballot-boxes for the Democracy 
to-day are really Republicans in their views, and being such will 
vote the Republican ticket as soon as they learn what it takes a 
little time to teach them, that they cannot give effect to those 
views in the Democratic party; and as soon as they overcome 
some lingering prejudices against the name of Republican and 
the negro voter. All that is necessary to win them ultimately 
to Republicanism is a broad policy of conciliation. It is idle 
to say we do not want them. We do. To succeed in the 
South the Republican party must have more white men than 


314 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


she has ever yet had. So long as the whites are banded to¬ 
gether in the South in the Democratic party they will control. 
They are ready to die before they will yield their government 
to the negroes, whether under the name of Republicans or 
Democrats ; and until the Republican party can sufficiently 
recruit itself from the white voters in the South to deprive its 
victories there of the aspect of a triumph of blacks over whites, 
it had as well stop trying to succeed; for by fair means or foul, 
by trickery or by violence, the whites will frustrate negro domi¬ 
nation. I do not state this fact approvingly, but state it as it is. 

There is no trouble about getting this accession of white 
voters with a proper management. 

We have principles in exact accord with the needs of the 
New South, and a thousand times more attractive than those 
of the Democracy. The people of the South are becoming 
eminently practical, and applying themselves to all sorts of new 
enterprises. The passions and prejudices of slavery and war 
are fast dying out. The feeling is in favor of a to-day and a to¬ 
morrow broad as a continent, and against a yesterday narrow 
as a section. As they feel that way themselves, they are re¬ 
pelled from a party that insists on past recollections and sec¬ 
tionalism. True, they are in such an one now, but they are 
not satisfied with it; and as the Republican party becomes more 
broadly national in spirit, thousands, nay, hundreds of thou¬ 
sands in the New South, who have heretofore been Democrats 
rather from circumstances and surroundings than from choice, 
will flock to its standard. 

The Republican party struck at the root of the extreme 
jealousy of the Union in the South when it abolished slavery. 
With that went the only real feeling against the Union. By 
its triumph in arms it not only destroyed the motive but the 
hope. It demonstrated the impossibility of such a thing as 
secession. 

But it went farther. With the power in its hands to push 
its triumphs far beyond the worst fears of the South; with the 
Southern States prostrate at its feet, it has proved to these 
people, who had been taught by the ultra States-rights politi¬ 
cians to expect an annihilation of State rights whenever Re- 


THE NEW SOUTH. 


315 


publicanism triumphed, that they had been duped and deceived 
by their own leaders; for no sooner was the war ended than 
the Supreme Court of the United States, a creature of Federal 
power, composed almost entirely of Republicans, solemnly de¬ 
clared, in the famous Slaughter-house cases, that the war had 
not been waged for the annihilation of State sovereignty; that 
it had not destroyed the autonomy of the States; and that, 
with the exceptk)n of the amendments bestowing new citizen¬ 
ship and suffrage, the war had effected no organic change, and 
States were as sovereign as ever. 

These decisions rendered by Republican tribunals at a time 
when the Republican party had the unquestioned power to 
decide anything it saw fit and enforce it, and followed as they 
have been for years by a series of other decisions recognizing 
States rights, and placing the doctrine upon a firmer and more 
intelligent basis than was ever done by the so-called party of 
States rights, have profoundly astonished the Southern masses, 
who had been studiously educated to fear that the Republican 
party in power would destroy their State governments, and 
build upon, their ruins a consolidated central government in 
which the States were to be dwarfed to utter insignificance. 
With the departure of their fears has come, not only a feeling 
of respect for the conservatism of Republicanism, but a feeling 
of resentment against those who excited their alarm so falsely. 

Time must elapse in every case of revolutions such as the 
Republican party wrought in the whole social and political 
organization of the South, before those in whose affairs they 
are effected, against their supreme protest, can be brought to 
realize that the change was a blessing and a benefit. 

It was idle at first to tell the bleeding and impoverished 
South that her desolated homes, her new-made graves, her 
vanquished armies, her enfranchised slaves, her dead hope of 
independence, her poverty, and the long and weary struggle 
for recuperation that lay before her, were all blessings in dis¬ 
guise. If they were in fact, the only way to teach her was to 
let her learn it for herself, and confess it when the bitterness 
of her defeat and disappointment was past. Could she have 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


316 

seen it then, and she could not, her pride and her pain would 
have made her refuse to confess it. 

But the time has come when she has learned that she is 
happier in the Union than she ever could have been out of it; 
that the emancipation of her slaves was an emancipation of 
their owners as well from a narrow, limited, and unevenly de¬ 
veloped civilization ; that her poverty has quickened what else 
had been a languid energy, and taught her both the dignity 
and the limitless possibilities of labor, whereas she once looked 
down upon and despised it as menial. 

The time has come when the Southern people begin to 
realize that she has passed through fire and blood not in vain, 
but inevitably for an all-wise purpose; and that what has hap¬ 
pened was necessary to make her present regeneration possible. 
The feeling now is almost universal that by reason of what has 
passed she is in condition to attain and is attaining a degree of 
wealth, civilization, importance, and prosperity which was im¬ 
possible under old conditions. This feeling is not only revo¬ 
lutionizing all the old feelings and prejudices of the South, but 
is bringing her people to the views if not to the name of Repub¬ 
licans. With the principles of Republicanism once espoused, 
taking the name and allying themselves with that party is only 
a matter of time. 

Take, for example, the tariff question. In the days of 
slavery the South had no manufactures. But what do we 
behold there now ? 

No sooner were her people forced to abandon slave agricul¬ 
ture than all sorts of industries sprung up. In Virginia, coal and 
iron industries rivaling those of Pennsylvania, mining towns, fur¬ 
naces, railroads, granite quarries, mills, and factories. In Georgia, 
every branch of manufacturing, from the most important rail¬ 
road enterprises to patent medicines of national reputation. 
In Alabama and Tennessee, the development of a wonderful 
juxtaposition of coal and iron that has turned their sedge- 
patches into cities where town-lots sell as high as in Wall 
Street. And even in South Carolina we find her competing, 
with her cotton fabrics, for the markets of Shanghai. In this 
land which a quarter of a century back knew nothing but cor- 


THE NEW SOUTH. 


317 


duroy roads and water-transportation, railroad-building is pro¬ 
gressing with a rapidity putting the busy West to its mettle to 
keep apace, and the New South is a perfect network of iron. 
The first fruit of all this is what? Will these “infant indus¬ 
tries ” submit to free trade? No. Have no fear that they 
will long consent to remain in the party of “ a tariff for revenue 
only.” Older and well-established manufacturing communities 
may be silent; but, with the enthusiasm of youth, the voice of 
the New South, the South which was but yesterday the free- 
trade South, is clamorous for protection. 

As yet she has not learned that to have protection she 
must be Republican. She has been so long Democratic that 
she still hopes to reconcile impossibilities, and thus it is that 
the Southern protectionist deludes himself by calling himself a 
“ Randall Democrat.” When he learns, what Mr. Randall has 
long since ascertained, that a protection Democrat is one in a 
hopeless minority of his party, and that he must always sacri¬ 
fice his protection principles and remain in the background for 
the privilege of the name of Democracy, the Southern protec¬ 
tionist, having more regard for his pecuniary interest than for 
the name, will go into the Republican party as the only hope 
of carrying out his views. A Randall Democrat is a brevet 
Republican, and all such, except Mr. Randall, will ultimately be 
in full commission. 

It was difficult to teach the Southern protectionist that he 
had no hope from Democracy when out of power. But now 
in power their purpose to force free trade upon the country 
ultimately is seen in their every act, and is having its effect. 

As an illustration : Coal has become a great industry in the 
Democratic States of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and 
Alabama. Thousands of men engaged in the coal trade in 
those States are Democrats, but their livelihood is dependent 
upon its protection. The Canadian fishery treaty was lately 
promulgated. It contained not a syllable about coal. But in 
the debates in the Canadian Parliament, and in the Canadian 
newspapers and our own, it was stated freely that, although 
there was no written stipulation, there was a verbal understand¬ 
ing at the time the treaty was consummated that Mr. Cleve- 


318 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


land's administration would use its influence to have ‘‘ coal, 
lumber, and salt ” put upon the free-list. Although this state¬ 
ment has been given great publicity, I have seen no denial of 
its truth. On the contrary, the message of President Cleve¬ 
land gives countenance to it, and the Mills tariff bill at its 
130th line, as if in pursuance of the agreement, declares that all 
mineral or other substances in a crude state shall be admitted 
duty free. In further corroboration of the statement, the 
Treasury circulars for March direct customs officers to admit 
all coals with 20 per cent or less of carbon duty free, classed as 
anthracite. Now it is known that anthracite has really but 8 per 
cent, and that the sub carbons of Pennsylvania, and the Mary¬ 
land, West Virginia, Virginia, and other Southern coals, none of 
them run higher than from 12 to 17 percent. Thus we behold 
the Democratic administration straining the construction of 
our present laws, which admit anthracite coals free, so as to ad¬ 
mit other coals which are far below the anthracite standard 
into duty-free competition with our own protected products. 
This is but one of many instances of the same policy. With 
such a spirit manifest in the Democracy in all things, with a 
direct pecuniary interest against free trade, I think there is no 
doubt whatever that the growing manufacturing interests in 
the New South will find themselves forced very soon to array 
themselves with their true friends, the Republican party, out of 
sheer self-protection. 

Again: The South must be with us on the internal-revenue 
question. 

Nowhere is the excise tax so odious as there. It was de¬ 
nounced by the Democracy as a Republican measure so long 
as the Republicans were in power. Hatred of it by our people, 
and the promise of its repeal as soon as Democracy was in¬ 
stalled, made thousands of Democratic votes in the South. It 
ought to be repealed. It would have been repealed if the Re¬ 
publicans had remained in power. President Arthur made it 
the subject of a special message to the Forty-eighth Congress, 
recommending its repeal. The Democratic masses of the 
South made the promise of its immediate and unconditional 
repeal the basis of their support of the party all through the 


THE NEW SOUTH. 


319 


South. Yet there it stands, and there it will stand so long as 
Democracy is in power. For they have resolved upon a re¬ 
duction of tariff duties as the thing of first importance, and 
that reduction is impossible if the system of internal-revenue 
taxation is repealed. From one or other source revenue must 
come, and the internal-revenue tax is the real and only source 
of taxation under Democratic theory. The people of the South 
are beginning to realize this, and thousands of men who have 
heretofore voted the Democratic ticket feel that they were de¬ 
ceived in the promise of its repeal and must vote the Repub¬ 
lican ticket if they hope to accomplish that end. 

No revolution of public sentiment in the South is more 
marked than that concerning education and the power of the 
Federal Government to aid the States in this and other ways 
by appropriations of money. 

According to Democratic doctrine the government has no 
power to do any of these things. 

In the olden time the South not only denied this power in 
the Federal Government, but when Congress made such ap¬ 
propriations the Southern States refused to receive them. 
Virginia and Mississippi declined for many years to accept 
their share of the public moneys in the Treasury from the pro¬ 
ceeds of the sale of public lands, distributed to the States for 
purposes of public education under the act of 1839. 
only after the war, as late as 1870, that they laid aside their 
pride and quietly took their share of the money. A changed 
public sentiment justified such action then. 

I have heard it stated that so stiff-necked were the South¬ 
ern States in the days of slavery in their opposition to and re¬ 
fusal to accept appropriations for rivers and harbors, as beyond 
Federal authority and against public policy, that up to the 
outbreak of our civil war the outlay by the Federal Government 
on Boston Harbor alone exceeded the whole amount expended 
on the Southern coast from the Potomac to the Rio Grande. 

Among the older Southern politicians that feeling still 
exists and is often manifest. They cannot yield or change 
opinions which they have spent a lifetime in uttering and de¬ 
fending. 


320 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Not SO with the people of the New South. In nothing are 
their feelings more thoroughly revolutionized than in this. 
The existence of this feeling is made manifest in the greedy 
demand for Federal aid of all sorts by the younger class of 
Southern Democratic leaders—demands so multiform and ex¬ 
acting, stretching the doctrine of liberal construction so far, as 
to make their pretense that they are Democrats, favoring the 
doctrine of strict construction, an absolute absurdity. The de¬ 
mand for a liberal exercise of Federal power in aid of the 
Southern people is almost universal in the New South. It 
matters not what the people with such views may call them¬ 
selves ; these views are ingrained and essentially Republican 
and not Democratic; and the people holding them are fast 
finding out that they cannot remain Democratic and obtain 
what they have so plainly resolved upon having. 

The most pointed instance of this popular demand, deluded 
and thwarted by Democratic promise, is in the matter of Fed¬ 
eral aid to education. This measure, as embodied in the Blair 
(education) bill, is a necessity in the New South. The Fed¬ 
eral Government saw fit to free and enfranchise the colored 
population. The burden of educating this class and fitting 
them for an intelligent exercise of the rights of citizenship was 
very great, and fell with peculiar hardship on the impoverished 
and debt-ridden South. That the Federal Government should 
aid in the task seemed plain to the North, and to the delighted 
South it not only held out almost the only hope of doing this 
right thing, but seemed a fair and honorable action on the part 
of the Nation. Of course it is a Republican measure. No 
consistent Democrat can reconcile it with the doctrines of his 
party. But Southern Democrats, seeing the almost universal 
demand for it in their constituents, did not hesitate to pledge 
their party to the support of the measure. To have done 
otherwise would have been to insure their defeat. Yet how 
have they redeemed their pledge ? They have been utterly 
unable to induce a majority of their party, now in power, to re¬ 
deem their pledge, and the Blair bill, thrice passed by a Re¬ 
publican Senate, languishes and is dead in the hands of the 
Democracy. 


THE NEW SOUTH. 321 

I know of nothing which has so brought home to our people 
a deep and bitter sense of disappointment in Democracy. 

One of the great blessings brought to the South by Repub¬ 
licanism is a change from the utter apathy touching popular 
education once existing there to a feeling amounting almost to 
enthusiasm in its favor. No measure proposed for many 
years has met with more unanimous support in the South than 
the Blair bill. It was calculated to benefit the Southern 
people peculiarly, for the fund appropriated for educational 
purposes by that bill was to be distributed to the States on the 
basis of illiteracy, and this would have carried the great bulk of 
it to the Southern States. The sight of that measure slaugh¬ 
tered in a Democratic House of Representatives has done more 
than anything I know to awaken the Southern people to a 
realization that the narrow, jealous, and illiberal views of 
Federal power entertained by Democracy are unfitted to the 
changed conditions and necessities of the South. 

I might multiply instances indefinitely, but the foregoing 
will suffice. 

Prejudice against political affiliation with the blacks has 
undoubtedly deterred and still deters Southern whites from 
becoming Republicans. But this unreasonable prejudice 
is fast dying out. It cannot force men to remain in the 
Democratic party against their interests and convictions, any 
more than the fact that the negroes are nearly all Baptists can 
keep white men who believe in the doctrine of immersion from 
joining the Baptist Church. All that is necessary is a little 
time. Let me give some figures showing the advances which 
Republicanism has made with white men in Virginia in the 
last twelve years. My illustration is from Virginia be¬ 
cause I know her matters best, and in a border Southern State 
a movement of this sort naturally begins. Look at these six¬ 
teen counties in Virginia—counties containing 37,370 white 
voters and but 4381 blacks. In 1876 and 1880 they cast a 
Republican vote barely equal to the colored voters in their 
limits. Yet in 1884 they registered nearly 18,000 Republican 
votes, whereof 14,000 must have been white, and show a gain 
of 13,400 votes in sixteen counties. Let the Democrat who 


322 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


boasts of a Solid South, and the Republican who despairs of 
breaking it, ponder on these figures: 



Males of Voting Age as 
stated in Census of 
1888. 

Number of Votes Cast. 


White. 

Colored. 

1876. 

Hayes. 

1880. 

Garfield. 

1884. 

Blaine. 

Alleghany. 

1,074 

391 

146 

146 

932 

Bland.. 

1.034 

43 

60 

60 

465 

Buchanan . 

1,036 

5 

2 

33 

243 

Floyd.. 

2,421 

224 

440 

345 

1,097 

Highland. 

1,044 

86 

50 

75 

461 

Montgomery. 

2,664 

768 

810 

601 

1,308 

Page . 

1.973 

224 

139 

149 

1,089 

Rockingham. 

5.871 

644 

508 

690 

2.761 

Russell. 

2,593 

221 

117 

190 

1,079 

Scott . 

3-231 

129 

531 

519 

1.509 

Tazewell. 

2.253 

337 

148 

148 

1.284 

Lee. 

2.826 

140 

290 

267 

1,020 

Shenandoah. 

4.019 

226 

265 

350 

1.872 

Stafford. 

1.323 

351 

234 

268 

762 

Wise. 

1,496 

17 

138 

126 

461 

Wythe. 

2.512 

565 

430 

382 

1,406 


37.370 

4.381 

4.308 

4.349 

17.749 


The truth is, the South is beginning to find out that it 
needs Republican principles to achieve its greatest possibili¬ 
ties, at about the same time that the Republican party is be¬ 
ginning to learn how much it needs the South. 

This is a happy conjunction of knowledge. It shows that 
the South is broadening and expanding in every view ; and it 
imposes upon the Republican party the duty of realizing that 
its principles, so admirably adapted, in the present and the 
future, to all sections of our land and all its people, are only 
marred and weakened by that class of persons who feel called 
upon on all occasions to thrust forward things of the past which 
are sectional and embittered, however glorious they may be. 

In the approaching campaign it behooves every Republican, 
North, South, East, and West, whether in antecedents he was a 
Union man or a Confederate, to unite in making the Repub¬ 
lican party what it really is, the only truly national party in 
America. The Democratic party is intensely secticnal. Let 
not the Republican party fall into an error so odious. 



































A FAIR VOTE AND AN HONEST COUNT. 


By Hon. John J. Ingalls, U. S. Senator from Kansas. 

The Republican party, in its platform adopted at Chicago, 
June 21, 1888, among other things, declares: 

“We reaffirm our unswerving devotion to the National Con¬ 
stitution and the indissoluble Union of the States; to the 
autonomy reserved to the States under the Constitution; to 
the personal rights and liberties of citizens in all the States 
and Territories in the Union, and especially to - the supreme 
and sovereign right of every lawful citizen, rich or poor, native 
or foreign-born, white or black, to cast one free ballot in public 
elections, and to have that ballot duly counted. We hold the 
free and honest popular ballot and the just and equal repre¬ 
sentation of all the people to be the foundation of our republi¬ 
can government, and demand effective legislation to secure 
the integrity and purity of elections, which are the fountains 
of public authority. We charge that the present administra¬ 
tion and the Democratic majority in Congress owe their exist¬ 
ence to the suppression of the ballot by a criminal nullifica¬ 
tion of the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 

Why was such an emphatic declaration of these political 
axioms necessary, and what is the foundation for the indict¬ 
ment against President Cleveland, and his supporters in the 
House of Representatives? 

The answer requires a brief review of the record of the 
Democratic party in national elections. 

Long before the Republican party was organized, the De¬ 
mocracy entered upon a systematic career of frauds upon the 
suffrage, to which it has persistently adhered, and to which its 
success is alone due. It has never been sustained by an hon¬ 
est majority of the votes of the American people, and is now 
in power by revolutionary and unconstitutional methods, as 

323 


324 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


intolerable and despotic as those which prevail in the most 
degraded nations of the earth. 

The Presidential elections of 1844, of 1852, and of 1856 were 
carried for the Democracy by corruption and fraud. Failing 
in i860 in their nefarious attempt to nationalize slavery, and 
defeat Lincoln, the Democratic party rebelled rather than sub¬ 
mit to the will of the majority, lawfully and peaceably ex¬ 
pressed at the polls, and deliberately presented the issue of 
dissolution and civil war. 

In the election of 1844 the vote in the Electoral College 
stood, Polk, 170; Clay, 105. New York, with 36 electoral 
votes, Georgia, with 10, and Louisiana, with 6, making 52 in 
all, were counted for Polk. 

In the House of Representatives, on the 7th of January,. 
1845, ex-Senator Clingman, of North Carolina (who is still 
living), delivered a speech upon the Democratic frauds in that 
election, in which he declared that the States above named 
were carried by corrupt assessments and levies upon officials 
in the custom-house in New York, by the illegal naturaliza¬ 
tion of foreigners, and by frauds upon the suffrage. 

A similar condition of affairs he alleged prevailed in Mary¬ 
land, fifty men in Baltimore alone having been convicted of 
double voting, who were subsequently pardoned by the Demo¬ 
cratic governor. In New York City above 7000 foreigners 
were naturalized, many of whom had not been in the country 
for six months, whose votes were cast for the Democratic can¬ 
didate. 

He alluded to the Empire Club, of New York City—aa 
important Democratic auxiliary—characterizing it as “ an as¬ 
sembly of gamblers, pick-pockets, and persons under indict¬ 
ments for murder and various crimes.” A conspiracy was 
formed to secure through this organization 14,000 illegal votes 
for Polk, but in consequence of difficulties that were not an¬ 
ticipated they were able only to secure 11,000. The sailors 
on several ships-of-war in the harbor of New York were un¬ 
lawfully directed to participate in the election, and were so 
unacquainted with the duties required of them that they voted 
in the wrong district, in consequence of which a Democratic 


A FAIR VOTE AND AN HONEST COUNT. 325 

member of Congress from Brooklyn was defeated, and his 
colleague in New York, on the opposite side of the bay, was 
elected. 

Polk’s apparent plurality in New York over Clay, notwith¬ 
standing the fraudulent votes cast, was but 5106. 

Mr. Clingman further alleged that voters were transferred 
from Philadelphia to the city of Albany, in pursuance of this 
conspiracy. In the county of St. Lawrence more than 1500 
fraudulent votes were cast, making a total of above 20,000 as¬ 
certained illegal voters in that State alone. He averred that 
in four counties in Georgia more fraudulent votes were cast 
than the declared majority of Polk in that State, which was 
2071. 

Clay was undoubtedly entitled to the electoral vote of 
Louisiana, and it was subsequently clearly established by testi¬ 
mony that the State was carried for Polk by a gang of New 
Orleans ruffians and repeaters who were taken on a steamboat 
to the voting-place of Plaquemines Parish, where they cast 701 
votes for the Democratic electors. Upon the face of the re¬ 
turns the Democratic majority was 699. 

There'is no fact in history more clearly established than 
that in 1868 New York was carried for Seymour by the most 
shameless and systematic frauds perpetrated by Tweed and 
his confederates in crime. The State was largely Republican, 
outside of the city of New York, where such spurious majori¬ 
ties were manufactured by the Democratic officials, who had 
all the election machinery, that the verdict of the people was 
apparently reversed and the mercenary misrule of Hoffman 
and Tweed continued, until public indignation was aroused by 
the plunder of the revenues, the prostitution of the judiciary, 
and the corruption of the suffrage. 

In 1876 New York was counted for Tilden by the repeti¬ 
tion of the same depraved practices. A majority of the hon¬ 
est vote of that State unquestionably was cast for Hayes, but 
the simulated returns from New York City and Kings County 
were repeated, with the usual result. Many of the Southern 
States were also undeniably Republican, but the “ Mississippi 
plan” was invented for that occasion, and by terrorizing and 


326 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


murdering colored citizens the organization of the party was 
destroyed, the canvass was interrupted, and entire communities 
were prevented from voting. In several States the plan suc¬ 
ceeded, but notwithstanding the bloody and brutal methods of 
the Democracy, Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana were 
carried by the Republicans, although thousands of electors 
were illegally prevented from casting their votes. Because 
Republican returning boards had the courage and intelligence 
to reject the votes of precincts and parishes where violence 
and intimidation had been employed to defeat the will of the 
majority, the Democratic party threatened another revolution, 
and declared their purpose to seat Tilden by force. 

To avoid civil war and secure a peaceable solution of the 
difficulty, the Republicans finally accepted the Democratic 
proposition for an Electoral Commission, consisting of five mem¬ 
bers of the Democratic House of Representatives, five members 
of the Republican Senate, and the five senior members of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, constituting a tribunal 
that, as the court was then organized, would be in favor of 
seating Tilden, the Democratic nominee for the Presidency, by 
a majority of one. 

Had the Hon. David Davis, the fifth member of the Su¬ 
preme Court, not been chosen to the Senate of the United 
States from Illinois in the place of Hon. John A. Logan (whose 
term had expired), rendering necessary the appointment of Mr. 
Bradley as the fifteenth member of the commission, its deci¬ 
sion would undoubtedly have been in favor of Mr. Tilden in¬ 
stead of Mr. Hayes, by a vote of eight to seven. 

When it became evident that the decision of the Electoral 
Commission would be adverse to the claims of the Democratic 
party to the votes in the disputed Southern States, they entered 
into further machinations for the purpose of preventing the 
anticipated result, by attempting to purchase the vote of a 
Presidential Elector in the State of Oregon. The negotiations 
were conducted by the intimate friends and trusted relatives of 
Mr. Tilden, in his own house, by means of the notorious cipher 
dispatches, whose genuineness and authenticity were never de¬ 
nied. Agents of Mr. Tilden were also sent to P'lorida, to South 


A FAIR VOTE AND AN HONEST COUNT. 32/ 

Carolina, and to Louisiana with large sums of money, which 
they were instructed to use if necessary to secure the requisite 
majority in the Electoral College. Detected in their nefarious 
schemes, and thwarted in their corrupt and unpatriotic effort 
to overthrow the will of the people, the Democratic party sul¬ 
lenly acquiesced in the decision of the Electoral Commis¬ 
sion, and since that time have endeavored to distract public 
attention from their frauds upon the suffrage, by their allusions 
in national and State platforms to “ Hayes, and the fraud of 
1876.” 

Since 1876 the Republican party has been practic^llly disor¬ 
ganized and extinct in the South. The “ Mississippi plan ” of 
outrage, intimidation, and murder has yielded to the “ South 
Carolina plan” of ballot-box stuffing, fraudulent registration, 
and fictitious returns, which have been found to be equally effec¬ 
tive, with the additional advantage of not arousing public 
indignation in the North. The Republicans in nearly every 
Southern State, both in local and Presidential elections, have 
for the past eleven years been disfranchised. Occasionally 
massacres have occurred, as in Copiah County, Mississippi, and 
at Danville, in Virginia ; but that species of “ persuasion,” as 
it is denominated by the Senators from Louisiana, has been 
generally abandoned. The tissue ballot has been found equally 
effective, more scientific, and more difficult of detection, than 
the bowie-knife, the bludgeon, and the revolver. 

During the past eight years, therefore, there has been hardly 
the semblance of a contest by the Republicans in the old slave 
States. Knowing that it was of no use to attempt to vote, 
they have quietly refrained. The results are plainly visible in 
the returns upon Congressional elections. While in the North¬ 
ern States the average vote cast in a Congressional district is from 
15,000 to 20,000, in Georgia it is about 4000. At the election 
of 1882 for Congressmen in the twenty districts of Illinois, 
525,270 votes were cast; while in the 38 Congressional districts 
in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, 
including one member elected at large, the total number of 
votes cast was 498,973. Thus the vote of one elector in either 


328 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


of these States counts for more than the votes of two men in 
Illinois, or any other Northern State. 

Oregon has one member of Congress, and the total vote in 
that State this year was a little in excess of 60,000. Georgia 
has ten Representatives in Congress. The total vote cast for 
these ten members was 23,806, and but 1900 votes were re¬ 
corded against them. Kansas has seven Representatives in 
Congress, for whom 251,971 votes werecast. Mississippi sends 
the same number, with 45,557 votes. These enormous excesses 
of representation which the South receives in Congress and in 
the Electoral College are upon the oasis of a large population, 
whose vote is suppressed, coerced, or thrown out of the count, 
representing the Republican party south of the Potomac River. 

The most recent illustration of Democratic methods in the 
Southern States appears in the election in Louisiana, held on 
the 17th of April last, at which the governor and other State 
officers, together with the legislature, charged with the election 
of two United States Senators, were chosen. 

There had been a serious quarrel in the Democratic party of 
that State between the factions headed respectively by ex-Gov. 
Nicholls and Gov. McEnery, both of whom were candidates for 
the gubernatorial nomination. In a speech delivered at New 
Orleans in January, during the canvass that preceded the elec¬ 
tion of delegates to the nominating convention. Gov. McEnery 
pledged himself to an honest and fair election. He declared 
that he would see that every vote was counted as cast, that no 
substitution of ballots was practiced, and that the voice of all 
the voters in the State, as deposited in the ballot-box, should 
find expression and receive recognition, and that the officers 
elected should be commissioned. He also publicly announced 
that he would remove any registrar or returning officer in 
the city or State that he had reason to believe aided in sup- 
pressing or changing the popular will. 

The declarations of the Governor admitted that grounds of 
complaint had hitherto existed, and vindicated all that had 
been said by Republicans about the condition of the suffrage 
in the South. Relying upon the public assurances of Gov. 
McEnery, the Republicans organized, made nominations, and 


A FAIR VOTE AND AN HONEST COUNT. 


329 


entered actively into the canvass. The nominating convention 
assembled on the loth of January, and after an animated and 
bitter contest Nicholls was successful in obtaining the nomina¬ 
tion. The partisans of Nicholls refused to support a resolution 
indorsing Gov. McEnery’s administration, whereupon the sup¬ 
porters of McEnery declared that unless he was unqualifiedly 
indorsed a resolution would be introduced committing the 
Democratic party in Louisiana to a “ free vote and a fair count.” 
Yielding to this threat, the refusal of the supporters of 
Nicholls was reconsidered, and the administration of Mc¬ 
Enery was indorsed. 

Subsequently, in a personal interview between McEnery 
and Warmoth, who had been nominated by the Republicans, 
McEnery repeated his declarations that he would hold himself 
personally and officially responsible for a fair, honest, and free 
election in April. He repeated his assurances again and again 
upon the stump during the campaign, but, as the canvass pro¬ 
ceeded, it became apparent that there was danger of Repub¬ 
lican success, and of the election of Warmoth. The tone of 
Gov. McEnery’s speeches suddenly changed. Early in March 
he said : 

“ I tell you there is danger, and north Louisiana will have to 
save this State from disgrace. If you permit the negroes to 
organize, you will have to break it by power, and go right now 
and break it in its incipiency. Before I will see such another 
state of affairs I will wrap the State in revolution from the 
Gulf to the Arkansas line. The white people under the radical 
regime were fast going toward the condition of Hayti, and I 
now ask you to establish to the world that we, the white peo¬ 
ple, intend to rule the destinies of this country. We have now 
a Gaul at our doors, and it is time we shall say that the law 
shall be silent, and uphold our liberties at all hazards.” 

As the campaign was drawing toward its close, and the suc¬ 
cess of Warmoth became more probable. Gov. McEnery pre¬ 
pared a circular letter, which was sent to the returning officers, 
whose duty it is under the statutes of Louisiana to select the 
polling places, appoint the commissioners and clerks of elec¬ 
tion, and return the votes in all the parishes of the State, in 


330 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


which he said : “ Warmoth is developing too much strength. 
We must beat him. See to it that your parish returns a large 
Democratic majority.” 

Gov. Warmoth has publicly challenged Gov. McEnery to 
deny the authenticity of this letter, which was sent not alone 
to the returning officers, but to leading Democrats in different 
portions of the State. At the meeting in March, previously 
referred to. Gov. McEnery was followed by Col. Jack, of 
Natchitoches, who said : 

“ You have heard the assurances of our chief executive that, 
come what will or may, he will wrap this State in revolution 
from the Arkansas line to the Gulf, rather than have radicalism 
come into power. And I tell you we are in danger with the 
astute and wily Warmoth as a leader—the wily, crafty, and in¬ 
sidious gentleman from New Orleans. 

‘‘ If this state of affairs should confront him, all Gov. McEn¬ 
ery would have to do would be to issue his fiat or manifesto, 
and the people of North Louisiana would come to his rescue 
and redeem the State as they did before ; and if what I say is 
treason, let them make the most of it.” 

The largest Democratic vote heretofore cast in Louisiana 
was at the spring election of 1884, when McEnery received 
88,794. Cleveland in the same year received 62,546. In 1880 
Hancock received 65,067. There had been no considerable 
increase of population in Louisiana, and the registration re¬ 
mained practically the same ; but under the impulse of the 
appeals of Gov. McEnery, and the instructions issued to the 
Democratic officials, the total vote returned for Nicholls on 
the 17th of April was 131,899, a majority of 83,699 over War¬ 
moth, being 43,000 more than were cast for McEnery in 1884, 
and 67,000 more than were cast for Hancock, and nearly 70,000 
more than were cast for Cleveland. 

This astounding result is a striking commentary upon the 
“ fair and honest count” which was promised by the Governor 
of Louisiana. The returning boards evidently thoroughly 
obeyed the injunction of Gov. McEnery to see to it that their 
parishes returned a large Democratic majority. Intelligent and 
thoughtful observers believe that, upon a reasonable estimate 


A FAIR VOTE AND AN HONEST COUNT. 


331 


of the vote in Louisiana, Warmoth carried the State by not 
less than 25,000 majority, which was converted by ballot-box 
stuffing, by spurious and fabricated returns—in many cases 
exceeding the entire registered vote—into a majority for 
Nicholls of more than 83,000, Even the Democratic news¬ 
papers of the State protested against the extraordinary and 
preposterous proceedings. They declared that the majority 
was ridiculous and unnecessary; that it would excite derisive 
sneers throughout the North, and go far toward electing a Re¬ 
publican President. One editor declared that only a suspen¬ 
sion of the law could produce such exaggerated majorities, and 
that if the Demoratic party indorsed such methods it would 
become a by-word and a reproach. 

Upon the subject of spurious and manifestly fabricated 
majorities, or majorities that exceed the entire registered vote, 
the statistics are interesting. For instance, in the parish of 
Bossier, giving Nicholls 4213 votes and Warmoth 95, making a 
total of 4308 cast, the registered vote of the parish is but 3603, 
making a difference between the votes returned as cast and the 
registered vote of 705. 

In East Carroll parish the registered vote was 2576. Nich¬ 
olls received 2680, or 104 in excess of the entire registration, and 
Warmoth received 285, being a total of 389 votes more than 
appeared upon the lists. 

Adjoining the parish of East Carroll is Madjson, where 
the law was entirely ‘suspended.’ The registered vote in 
Madison was 3360, of which 279 were white and 3081 colored. 
Nicholls’s vote was 2530, with not a single vote for Warmoth, 
so that Nicholls received 170 votes more than the entire num¬ 
ber of votes, white and colored, in the parish. 

The parish of Concordia had a registered vote of 4201, of 
which 448 were white and 3753 colored. Nicholls received 
4219 votes in Concordia, being 18 votes more than the entire 
registration ; and the Democracy gratuitously gave Warmoth 
145, making a total of votes cast apparently 4364, or an excess 
of 163 votes above the entire registration. 

In Red River Parish the result was still more ^unanimous.’ 
The registered vote was 1181, of which Nicholls received 1679 


332 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


and Warmoth 78, being a total of 1757, an excess of 57 ^* Sub¬ 
tracting the registered vote of the parish from the vote received 
by Nicholls, it will be perceived that the ‘ reform ’ candidate 
was given 498 votes more than the entire parish contains. This 
is a free vote and an honest count! 

Coming [down to the parish of West Baton Rouge we find 
a total of 1811, of which 504 are white and 1307 colored. In 
this parish Nicholls was given 1712 and Warmoth 454, a total 
of 2166, making an excess of votes counted above votes reg¬ 
istered of 355. 

Another illustration of the fulfillment of McEnery’s pledge 
that he would see an ‘ honest and fair election ’ is found in the 
vote of Vermillion, in southwestern Louisiana, a parish whose 
registered vote is 2099, of which Nicholls received 1687 and 
Warmoth 619, total 2306, an excess of 211. 

In Washington parish the registered vote was 965, of which 
Nicholls received 763, Warmoth 271, a total of 1034, or 69 more 
votes than the registration shows to have been in the parish. 
In these precincts and parishes to which I have referred, con¬ 
taining a registered vote of a little less than 20,000, the excess 
of votes cast above the registration is more than 2600. 

But it is not in the Southern States alone that the Demo¬ 
cratic party has displayed its inherent and ingrained propensity 
to falsify the returns, and to steal what they could not honestly 
and fairly obtain. 

From 1884 to 1887 the Senate of the United States was Re¬ 
publican by only two majority. The members of the legisla¬ 
tures elected in those years in Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana were 
to choose successors to three Republican Senators. It is a 
curious and instructive coincidence that in each of those three 
States the most desperate and determined efforts were made 
by the Democracy through fraud, theft, perjury, and forgery 
to secure enough legislators to elect Democratic successors to 
Logan, Harrison, and Sherman. 

On the morning after the election in 1884, in Illinois, it ap¬ 
peared from the unofficial returns that the Republicans had 76 
members of the House and 26 in the Senate, a total of 102; 
while the Democrats had 76 members of the House and 24 of 


A FAIR VOTE AND AN HONEST COUNT. 


333 


the Senate, with one member in each body independent. If 
the Republicans could be deprived of one Senator and one 
Representative, the Democrats, through a coalition with the 
independents, would have a majority of two on joint ballot. 

In the Sixth Senatorial District it appeared that Henry 
W. Lehmann had been chosen over Rudolph Brand, Demo¬ 
crat, by 390 majority. The returns from the Second Precinct 
of the Eighteenth Ward in Chicago gave the vote as follows: 
Lehmann, 420 ; Brand, 274. Six days later, when the official 
canvass was made, it was discovered that the returns had 
been changed. They then read, Lehman, 220; Brand, 474; 
which gave Brand a majority of 10 in the district. The evi¬ 
dences of fraud and forgery were so clear that the United 
States Grand Jury, then in session, promptly found an indict¬ 
ment against Joseph C. Mackin, the alleged instigator of the 
crime, and the man who ordered the bogus tickets printed ; 
Henry W. Gallagher, the expert penman who forged the tally- 
sheets ; and Richard Gleason, a clerk in the County Clerk’s 
office, through whose connivance the ballot-boxes and tally- 
sheets were changed. 

Mackin and Gallagher are now convicts in the penitentiary 
in Illinois. The case against Gleason was dropped upon some 
legal technicality. 

In Ohio, in 1886, the same tactics were resorted to by 
the Democratic party in Cincinnati and Columbus, but the 
thieves and forgers of Ohio were less expert than those in Illi¬ 
nois. Instead of preparing an entirely new tally-sheet, the 
figures on the original were changed, and so clumsily and 
awkwardly that the fraud was plainly visible. In Columbus 
the tally-sheets were stolen. Judge Thurman, the present can¬ 
didate of the Democracy for Vice-President, was retained as 
counsel for the prosecution in some of these cases, and has 
diminished his own vote, in Ohio at least, by assisting to 
incarcerate several of his brother-Democrats in the State 
penitentiary. 

The Democracy of Ohio do not regard this subject as an 
agreeable topic of discussion ; but one of the most prominent 
members of that party, ex-Gov. Hoadly, in a speech delivered 


334 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


in Cincinnati, just before his departure for New York, where 
he is now residing, gave his party associates some valuable ad¬ 
vice, which they will do well to heed. He admitted that at 
the fall election of 1885, votes had been counted for him that 
had been cast for Gov. Foraker, and urged his party friends 
never again to allow an honest man to be put into the position 
of knowing that he had been credited with votes that had 
never been cast for him. 

But reputable Democrats, who would not participate in 
frauds upon the suffrage, have little influence on the party or¬ 
ganization. 

In Indiana, in 1886, the Democrats were more successful. 
The State Senate was Democratic, and it refused to recognize 
the Lieutenant-Governor elected in that year. The President, 
pro tempore^ of the Senate retained his place. Two Republican 
Senators who had been elected were arbitrarily excluded, and a 
majority on joint ballot being thus obtained, Mr. David Tur- 
pie was chosen to succeed Senator Harrison, and his title to his 
seat has been confirmed by the Senate. 

The latest exhibition in the State of New York of the 
Democratic attitude upon the subject of a free ballot and fair 
count is the veto of the Saxton Electoral Reform bill by Gov. 
Hill—a veto generally approved by the Democratic press. 
The object of this measure was to guard against illegal voting, 
repeating, ballot-box stuffing, and all species of fraud upon 
the suffrage. It was passed almost unanimously by a Repub¬ 
lican legislature, but, not agreeing with the ideas of the Demo¬ 
cratic machine, it failed to receive the approval of the Execu¬ 
tive. 

THE QUESTION IS ANSWERED. 

The Republican party demands a free ballot and a fair 
count because a free ballot and a fair count are denied by the 
Democrats in nine States to such an extent that voting is a 
mockery, and because in other States frauds on the suffrage are 
committed whenever they appear necessary. It demands a 
free ballot and a fair count because they are at the basis of re¬ 
publican institutions; because there is no safety for the Re- 


A FAIR VOTE AND AN HONEST COUNT. 


335 


public unless the purity of the polls is preserved; because the 
Democratic party, always and everywhere, has been and is 
more careful for partisan success than for the preservation of 
our institutions ; because a free ballot and a fair count would 
re-enfranchise a million voters in the Gulf States and break up 
the menace of a solid South. 

If the South were kept “solid ” by fair means, the Repub¬ 
lican party would have no right to complain. If, upon an 
open, fair, honest expression of opinion on the part of all cit¬ 
izens, white and black, one hundred and fifty-three electoral 
votes were recorded for the Democratic party in the South, 
nobody could find fault. If this result were reached by the 
voluntary refusal of sixty per cent of the population to vote at 
all, even this could be endured. But when more than one 
half of the entire body of citizens desiring to vote are either 
forcibly prevented, or fraudulently deprived of their votes by 
false returns, the situation is widely different. 

One hundred and fifty-three votes in the Electoral College 
are assured to the Democracy in November without any other 
effort than that required to write the certificates. It will not be 
necessary to make a speech nor contribute a dollar for the ex¬ 
penses of that campaign. Forty-eight more in the North will 
give Cleveland another term. To secure these, the patronage 
of the administration, the contributions from office-holders, 
the services of the repeaters, the rounders, and the heelers of 
New York, Ohio, and Indiana will be strenuously devoted. 
While the South is kept “ solid,” the North is to be divided by 
false pretenses, by efforts to array labor against capital, the 
poor against the rich, the farmers against the corporations. 
They need but forty-eight votes, while the Republicans in this 
unequal contest must secure two hundred and one, or fail. 
Nor should it be forgotten that of the one hundred and fifty- 
three Southern votes, thirty-eight were obtained by the addi¬ 
tional representation arising from the enfranchisement of the 
negroes, who thus increase the political power of their former 
masters, by whom they are deprived of the prerogatives of cit¬ 
izenship guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the 
United States. 


336 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


The purpose to eliminate the negro as a factor in the pol¬ 
itics and society of the South is no longer concealed. It is 
avowed openly by their representatives in the Senate. They 
declare their intention to prevent the negro from voting, “ by 
persuasion ”! They affirm that he is destitute of capacity for 
self-government. If this be true, let them then in honor and 
justice relinquish the increment they acquired by his enfran¬ 
chisement ; so that equality of suffrage may be preserved, 
and the equilibrium between the North and the South main¬ 
tained. 

The approaching contest is the most important of the cen¬ 
tury. It will be the Gettysburg of our politics. Its result 
will determine the course of our history for another gener¬ 
ation. Should the next administration be Democratic, the 
Supreme Court will be reconstructed upon the basis of hostility 
to the war amendments and the great statutes of freedom. 
From its decision there will be no appeal except by revolution. 

The great economic questions of protection to American 
labor, the currency, the surplus, internal improvements, our 
foreign policy, education, the public credit, affecting not alone 
the walfare of the Nation, but the wages of every laborer and 
the values of all property, will be the subjects of legislation, 
and when we insist that the decision shall be made by legis¬ 
lators and an Executive honestly chosen by a free ballot and a 
fair count, we are insolently told that it is “ none of our bus¬ 
iness ”! That is to say, by the suppression of majorities, by 
stuffing ballot-boxes with votes that were never cast, by forg¬ 
ing certificates of election, Cleveland may be declared Presi¬ 
dent, and Senators and Representatives may be returned to 
Congress, who are to impose taxes, dispose of the revenues, 
and direct the destinies of the Nation, while representing only 
a minority of the people, and it is “ none of our business”! 

The Constitution of the United States does not confer upon 
any citizen the right to vote. That right is not one of the 
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. 
When possessed at all, even for electing Representatives in 
Congress and Presidential Electors (the only national officials 
chosen by popular vote), it is conferred by State constitutions 


A FAIR VOTE AND AN HONEST COUNT. 


337 


and State statutes. The Fifteenth Amendment to the Consti¬ 
tution does not, as is sometimes supposed, grant the right of 
suffrage to any one. It only exempts citizens of the United 
States from discrimination in the several States in the exercise 
of the right to vote on account of “ race, color, or previous con¬ 
dition of servitude,” and empowers Congress to enforce that 
right of exemption by appropriate legislation. The power of 
the States to qualify or deny the elective franchise upon other 
grounds, such as nativity, sex, illiteracy, non-payment of taxes, 
remains unchanged. The authority of Congress to legislate at 
all upon the subject of suffrage in the different States rests alone 
upon the Fifteenth Amendment. It can be exercised only by 
providing punishment when the votes of the qualified electors 
at any State or national election are refused by the State au¬ 
thorities, on account of race, or color, or previous condition of 
servitude, and the only punishment that can be inflicted upon 
the State is the reduction of its representation in Congress and 
the Electoral College. 

It is no answer to say that these crimes against suffrage are 
not committed by the State, but by individuals; that as there 
are no statutes forbidding negroes to vote, they are not de¬ 
prived of their rights by the “ State.” The State permits 
these wrongs to be perpetrated, and refuses to punish the 
malefactors. The officials of the State direct and authorize 
the proceedings by which majorities are suppressed, elections 
corrupted, citizens outraged, and the Nation dishonored. 

In a political system based like ours upon the absolute 
equality of all men before the law, if the humblest citizen is 
deprived of his rights, without redress, the government ceases 
to be republican in form. If injustice is inflicted upon one, all 
are the victims. It is not a local question. It transcends 
State boundaries and becomes national. The fraudulent elec¬ 
tion in Louisiana affected not only those who were deprived 
of their votes, but those who voted also, and all the voters of 
every party in every State in the Union, and every material 
interest of the American people. There can be neither peace 
nor prosperity while the equality of suffrage is disregarded. 
The legality of every election will be challenged, discontent 


338 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


will be succeeded by exasperation, respect for law will disap¬ 
pear, and some fatal catastrophe will follow. 

The Constitution and the Union derive their force and sanc¬ 
tion from, and depend for their permanence and stability upon, 
the will of the people expressed at the polls. Our fabric of 
government rests upon popular suffrage, as a temple upon its 
foundation-stones. It cannot stand unless justice is impartial 
and equality universal; unless it is as safe for a black Republi¬ 
can to vote in Mississippi as for a white Democrat to vote in 
Colorado; unless at every poll, at all elections, in every State 
and Territory, each citizen can cast one vote freely and have it 
honestly counted. 


THE FUTURE MISSION OF THE PARTY. 


By Hon. Geo. F. Hoar, U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. 

Certainly no political party in history, not even that to 
which was committed the great function of inaugurating the 
Constitution, ever in so brief a space accomplished so much that 
was important and beneficent as the Republican party in the 
fourteen years in which it held legislative and executive power. 

It was formed for the sole purpose of preventing the exten¬ 
sion of slavery into the Territories. The providence of God 
imposed upon it far larger duties. 

In fourteen years it enacted a protective tariff, which 
made the United States the greatest manufacturing nation 
on earth ; it enlisted, organized, and sent back to civil life 
a vast army; it created a great navy, constructed on prin¬ 
ciples not invented when it came into power; it put down 
a gigantic rebellion; it made freemen and citizens of four 
million slaves; it contrived the national banking system; it 
created a currency which circulates throughout the world on 
an equality with gold ; it incurred a vast debt, and made 
provision for its payment; it made the credit of the country 
the best in the world ; it restored specie payment; it devised 
and inaugurated the beneficent homestead system ; it built 
the Pacific railroads; it compelled France to depart from 
Mexico ; it exacted apology and reparation from Great Britain ; 
it overthrew the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, and required 
the great powers of Europe hereafter to let our adopted citizens 
alone ; it made honorable provision for invalid soldiers and 
sailors. 

To no one of these things did the Democratic party contrib¬ 
ute. Most of them encountered its bitter and strenuous oppo¬ 
sition. 


339 


340 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE TWO PARTIES. 

The elements that make up the two parties to-day are, in 
substance, little changed. The men who, to the utmost of 
their power, opposed every one of these things are still all-pow¬ 
erful to direct the policy of the Democratic party. Subtract 
from that party the old slaveholders and the liquor-dealers and 
criminal classes of the great Northern cities, and it would no 
longer be formidable. 

The farmers of the West, the manufacturers and skilled 
laborers of the East, the soldiers, the church-members, the 
clergymen, the school-teachers, the reformers, the men who 
are doing everywhere the great work of temperance, of 
jeducation, of philanthropy, make up now, as they have ever 
made up, the strength of the Republican party. They vdll 
deal with the questions which arise in the future in the same 
temper, with the same purpose, and with the same capacity 
with which they have dealt with them in the past. 

There maybe, there will be, while human nature remains un¬ 
changed, periods when the Republican party may fall short of 
its high standard. We know well that no people can always 
dwell on the tops of the mountains; that it is 

“ The most difficult of tasks to keep 

Heights which the soul is competent to gain.” 


We cannot now foresee the great questions of the future, 
any more than we could foresee them in i860. But we can¬ 
not doubt that when they come, the honest, wise, safe, liberal, 
progressive American counsel will be given by the party 
whose history we have sketched, made up of the free men of 
the free North, from whom such counsel has always come, and 
that the unwise, unsafe, illiberal, obstructive, un-American 
counsel will still come from the party whose strength is in the 
solid South, allied with the liquor-sellers and the criminal 
classes of the great Northern cities, from whom such counsel 
has always come. 


ITS FUTURE MISSION. 


341 




THE REPUBLICAN FAITH. 

The Republican party is not a church, nor a conclave.. 
Extending over nearly fifty States and Territories, of varying 
history, interests, opinions, and character, it must comprise and 
tolerate a large variety of opinion in matters non-essential. 
But it has its creed and its statement of faith, from which no 
man departing can maintain his Republicanism. That state¬ 
ment of faith is to be found in the Declaration of Indepen¬ 
dence and in most of our State constitutions. 

It is that it is the right and the duty of every citizen to take 
his equal share in the government of his country. 

To that end the obligation rests upon the State to see that 
every citizen has an education which shall fit him for that 
duty and privilege. 

To that end the obligation rests upon the State to pursue 
such policy as will keep the standard of wages up to the 
highest possible point, so that the citizen may have the com¬ 
fort and leisure for himself and the education for his children 
without which he cannot discharge this duty with intelligence 
and honor. 

To that end the ballot-box must be made sacred and kept 
sacred. The man who, by fraud or violence, defeats the true 
will of the people, expressed by a fair majority of equal votes, 
or who debauches that will by corrupting the individual voter, 
should be punished by the severest penalties of the law, and 
made infamous by an aroused and indignant public sentiment. 

To that end, polygamy, which destroys the sanctity of the 
home, must be extirpated. 

To that end, the drinking-saloon, which corrupts and de¬ 
bauches the soul and destroys the health of body and mind, 
must be suppressed. 

These are the great essentials of free government. Without 
all of them the Republic itself cannot long endure. These are 
the six points of republicanism. That the Republican party 
alone is to be looked to for their accomplishment will be seen. 


342 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


when we reflect how ridiculous and out of place any one of 
them would seem in a Democratic platform. 

OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. 

There are other things also for which we can look only to 
the wisdom and courage of Republican statesmanship. 

We desire a dignified and spirited foreign policy, instead of 
the timid and supplicatory tone which now pervades our diplo¬ 
macy. We want an administration which is neither afraid to 
hold the great railroads of the country in check on the one 
hand, nor to do them full and exact justice on the other. We 
want an administration that will develop our foreign commerce 
and our foreign carrying trade, that will build up our navy and 
no longer leave our coasts undefended. We want life and 
vigor and health to pervade every part of the country. The 
Republican party, from i86i to 1874, the only years when it 
has wielded the legislative forces of the country, has showm 
what it could accomplish with the forces of a people of thirty 
million in a time of war, when one third of the country was 
attempting the destruction of the rest. 

When it shall return to power in both the legislature and ex¬ 
ecutive branches of he Government, it will do far greater things 
with the forces of a people of sixty million in profound peace, 
dwelling together in unity. North and South divided only by 
a generous rivalry which shall contribute most to the common 
glory of their country. 

America has a destiny even greater than all this. When 
she shall resume her triumphant march on her accustomed 
pathway of safety, of honor, and of glory, it will not be for 
herself alone. She is to be, as ever before, aye, as never before, 
“ the enlightener of the nations, the beautiful pioneer in the 
progress of the world.” The sinking hearts of the poor, the 
down-trodden, the oppressed, everywhere shall still be borne 
up by a new courage, as they think of her. 

The torchlight of her great Declaration shall still blaze on 
the heights, cheering and blessing and comforting humanity 
everywhere with its beam. 


ITS FUlURE MISSION. 


343 


FORWARD. 

The mission of the Republican party is not yet ended. Its 
record and policy, the personal character of its membership, 
its stalwart Americanism, will make it a potent and lasting 
force in the future, as they have made it in the past, history of 
the country. 

Not till the American ballot-box is as sacred as the Amer¬ 
ican hearth ; not till every American citizen is an educated 
American citizen; not till American labor is shielded in tem¬ 
perance and thrift at home, and from competition with pauper¬ 
ism abroad; not till the American flag is the unchallenged 
symbol of American rights; not till the Republic is a synonym 
for the universal intelligence, freedom, equality, and political 
and social happiness of everyone of its citizens, will the mission 
of the Republican party be ended. And to that mission, to 
that worthy expansion of its great achievements in the past, it 
summons to its banner now and henceforward the ardor and 
patriotism and conscience of American manhood, the enthu¬ 
siasm of its youth, and the wisdom of its maturer years. 

So marshaled and so inspired, its motto Forward,, the Great 
Republican Army will go on conquering and to conquer. 


344 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE REPUBLICAN 
PARTY: 1888-1893. 

By J. Harris Patton, Ph.D. 

During the canvass in 1884, the vilest personal attacks were 
made on the Republican candidate. The Republican party 
was charged with financial dishonesty in office, and the fairest 
promises were made by the Democratic party if the people 
would replace them in power. Thousands of honest voters 
were led to think there might be some truth in these claims 
and promises, and so gave their votes to Mr. Cleveland. 

Through undoubted fraud in the City of New York he was 
given the electoral vote of the State, and was declared elected. 

No doubt the Democrats thought they would find some 
basis for their charges of financial irregularities upon the long 
succession of Republican administrations. They knew what 
they would have done had they been in power, they under¬ 
stood the wholesale robberies committed by their party in the 
City of New York, and they supposed that Republicans were 
only different in name. 

No sooner, therefore, was Mr. Cleveland settled in Wash¬ 
ington than the Democratic party began the most remarkable 
auditing of financial accounts known to history. These ac¬ 
counts covered the administrations from March 4th, 1861, to 
March 4th, 1885, including the great war period, in which the 
collections and disbursements were unprecedented. Experts, 
after months of labor, with a zeal born of political hate, verified 
all the vouchers in the various departments, and their reports 
vindicated the integrity with which the financial affairs^ had 
been conducted during the entire time of Republican rule. 

During the Cleveland administration no measure of nation¬ 
al importance was originated and adopted. The Presidential 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1888-1893. 345 

succession ; The counting of electoral votes ; The establishment 
of a Department of Agriculture; The reconstruction of the 
Navy, etc., all originated under previous administrations. The 
law which required, for actual settlers, the restoration to the 
public domain of the lands forfeited by certain railroads, was 
enacted during President Arthur’s administration (June 28, 
1884), and yet was mentioned in the Democratic platform of 
1888 as if it had originated during Mr. Cleveland’s administra¬ 
tion. Mr. Cleveland’s administration was, however, very suc¬ 
cessful in finding places for its followers. In spite of all pro¬ 
fessions in favor of Civil Service Reform, it had, before June 
II, 1887, appointed Democrats to 42,992 out of 56,134 posi¬ 
tions then subject to Presidential appointment. 

Mr. Cleveland’s administration made strenuous efforts to 
change the financial policy of the government, the President 
himself personally and by message urging the most radical 
measure^. 

This led to the introduction in Congress of the “ Morrison 
Tariff Bill,” which virtually called for a “horizontal reduc¬ 
tion ” of 20 per cent, from the tariff of 1883. 

Next followed the “ Mills Tariff Bill.” Its primary object 
appears to have been to obtain revenue, while it was deemed 
of only secondary importance to guard the industries of this 
country against ruinous competition with the low wages paid 
in Europe. The more thoughtful Democrats, knowing the 
value of protection, approved of the Republican policy, and 
united with the Republicans in Congress to defeat these bills. 

Four years of Democratic misrule, during which no meas¬ 
ure of national importance was instituted, and which, by its 
persistent attempts to change the financial policy of the gov¬ 
ernment, had tended to greatly unsettle business, were enough 
to show the people that their true interests were in the 
keeping of the Republican party. 

HARRISON’S ADMINISTRATION. 

The administration of President Harrison was one of the 
most important in the history of the United States. It never 
failed to accomplish whatever it undertook, and its great sue- 


346 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


cesses will be more clearly understood and approved as they 
pass into history. It was conducted without any desire for 
show or to catch the people, but simply, and solely for the 
good of the Nation. 

While President Harrison’s quiet, unobtrusive manner 
of conducting public affairs was at first not understood or 
appreciated, the people soon saw that the administration 
moved grandly and steadily onward, with no failures and many 
successes. He was known to be of more than ordinary ability, 
but it was not till he made his tour through the country that 
his real power was felt and understood. The wonderful series 
of speeches delivered by him in various sections of the Nation 
made people think. Never hiding his views, never concealing 
the principles and policy of his administration, and yet so ad¬ 
dressing his hearers everywhere as to show his desire for the 
common good of our common country, he won universal praise 
and silenced his enemies. 

It was, however, in its wise diplomacy and its carefully 
prepared financial measures, intended to protect and build up 
all the interests of the country, that the Harrison administra¬ 
tion gained its greatest successes. 

THE “SAMOAN AFFAIR.” 

The parties specially interested in Samoa were Germany, 
England and the United States. Factions had been in existence 
for some time among the native chiefs in relation to the suc¬ 
cession to the throne, which was then occupied by the aged 
Malietoa, the legitimate high-chief or king, who was said to be 
friendly with the United States. 

The German consul was charged with fomenting dissensions 
among the chiefs in favor of one of the two aspirants less 
worthy of the office of king than Malietoa. This same German 
consul took the responsibility of sending ashore a company of 
marines with orders to,seize old Malietoa, and bring him aboard 
a ship, in which he was afterward carried as an exile to the 
Marshall Islands, i,ooo miles or more distant. 

Then commenced a series of conflicts among the chiefs and 
their respective adherents. These were put an end to by the 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1888-1893. 


347 


American consul raising the Stars and Stripes above the Ger¬ 
man ensign, thus intimating that the legal government was 
under their protection. 

Negotiations were promptly commenced, and during their 
progress, Mr. Blaine, the Secretary of State, in behalf of the 
administration, insisted as an ultimatum that Malietoa should 
be brought back from his exile and restored to his rights. 
After some delay, the action of the consul was disavowed by 
Bismarck, and in due time a German war vessel was ordered to 
the Marshall Islands to bring the old king home. 

Thus Malietoa was restored to his throne, where he still 
rules, and American diplomacy and justice completely tri¬ 
umphed. 

An extradition treaty with England, including Canada, was 
satisfactorily negotiated. The main features of the treaty con¬ 
sist in an addition of a much larger number of offences for 
committing which persons, when escaping to either country? 
can be extradited. 

The main contention in the Behring Sea controversy 
pertained to certain rights claimed by the United States Gov¬ 
ernment in regard to the fur seals that frequent that sea as 
their breeding place. The entire subject in dispute between 
Great Britain and the United States was transferred for settle¬ 
ment to a Court of Arbitration, in accordance with a treaty 
made and ratified by both parties. Meanwhile a modus 
viveudi, similar to the one of the summer of 1891, was ar¬ 
ranged and our rights were carefully protected. 

The friendly relations existing between Italy and the 
United States were suddenly broken by a mob in New Orleans, 
which punished by death a number of Italians who were accused 
of murder. Among these were persons who were not natural¬ 
ized, but were still subjects of Italy. The administration 
at once condemned the outrage, and expressed to the 
Italian authorities its deepest regret. After the interchange 
of a few diplomatic notes, the President waived all techni¬ 
calities, and offered a suitable indemnity, to be distributed 
by the Italian Government to the families of those of its 
citizens who had been the victims of the outrage. The offer 


348 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


was accepted and the former friendly relations thereby re¬ 
stored between the two governments. 

During the late civil war in Chili, the Baltimore^ one of our 
government vessels, was lying in the harbor of Valparaiso. 
A number of the seamen, having permission, went ashore, 
where they were attacked by a mob and treated with great 
violence. The government firmly maintained the rights of the 
American sailors. The result of the negotiations was that 
Chili offered an apology for the insult to our flag, and agreed 
to pay a suitable indemnity to the families of those injured on 
that occasion. In consequence, amicable relations were re¬ 
stored between the two sister republics. 

The Act to encourage ship building in this country, passed 
by the Harrison administration, was far-reaching in its effects. 
The bill was hardly announced before England became alarmed 
and attempted to change its results. With the largest, fastest 
steamers in the world flying the Stars and Stripes, the Ameri¬ 
can shipping interests took on a new life. Our ship yards began 
at once to show unusual activity. As steamer after steamer is 
added to the fleet under our colors, giving us the greatest line 
of transatlantic steamers the world has ever seen, the value of 
this measure will impress itself on the people more and more. 

The Harrison administration was a practical one, and stood 
always for the greatest good of the United States. It studied 
all governmental questions carefully and from all sides, and 
its wisdom in reaching conclusions is unquestioned. 

The Silver Question has long been the ghost troubling both 
political parties. The administration was anxious to do all 
that could be done to restore silver to its proper condition in 
the monetary world, but it understood how ruinous it would 
be for us to stand alone in the matter. Gold would be driven 
abroad and would command a premium—silver would be the 
standard. Trade would be interrupted and business irreparably 
injured. But if England would unite with us in such action other 
European countries would follow, and the benefits, without the 
injuries, would accrue to us. Soon after the failure of Baring 
Brothers the administration quietly commenced negotiations 
with Europe looking to a monetary conference. These negotia- 


349 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1888-1893. 

tions were constantly continued, and a conference was agreed 
upon looking to an enlarged use of silver as a currency. 

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 

The Harrison administration gained the approval in gen¬ 
eral, even of its opponents, by its careful appointments and its 
adherence to the principles of Civil Service. At the annual 
meeting of the Civil Service Reform League, in Baltimore in 
1892, it was credited with “having appointed an admirable com¬ 
mission, which has enforced the requirements of the law> 
awakened confidence in the Southern States in its honest 
operations, and everywhere stimulated a wholesome apprehen¬ 
sion.” 

The League also recognized and approved Secretary 
Tracy’s endeavors to introduce a sound system into the 
naval service. 

THE M^'KINLEY BILL. 

Among the great triumphs of the Harrison administration 
was its action on the tariff. 

Free trade, a tariff for revenue only, and a protective tariff 
have presented their claims to the people. The free traders 
unite with the Democratic party as tending to free trade. The 
Republican party is the distinctive advocate of protection to 
our industries. 

It believes that the tariff should impose duties so as to 
produce the necessary revenue, and at the same time protect 
all our industries that are subject to foreign competition, so 
that the products of the cheap labor of oppressed classes abroad 
shall not be brought in here to destroy our industries and re¬ 
duce the wages of our workingmen. It further claims that 
these industries, thus protected, will gradually become able to 
compete in prices (through the increased intelligence of the 
working classes and by improved machinery) even with the 
products of cheap-labor countries. 

Its position rests on experience, the history of our own 
country, and information carefully collected from abroad. 

A tariff for revenue only was enacted in 1833. It pro- 


350 


THE republican PARTY. 


duced a surplus, but at the expense of the general depression 
of the mechanical industries of the country, because the sur¬ 
plus was derived from low import duties on common articles, 
which, under proper protection, the people could have made 
themselves, but were then unable to make because the coun¬ 
try was flooded with these commodities, which were imported 
and sold at cheap prices on account of the low wages paid 
abroad. 

The result was that the government became rich, while the 
industries were virtually ruined and the people almost bank¬ 
rupted. 

The tariff of i86i was the first comprehensive attempt at 
protection, and proved its value. The protection granted not 
only raised enormous revenues to carry on the War of the 
Rebellion, and later to pay off the National Debt, but also 
caused the mechanical and agricultural industries of the coun¬ 
try to increase with unprecedented rapidity. 

Since i86i only such changes have been made as have 
more carefully protected the people. During the administra¬ 
tion of President Hayes steps were taken to ascertain through 
our consuls the amount of trade with the United States at 
their several ports, the wages paid operatives in various 
industries, the modes of living, home comforts, etc., of the 
workingmen abroad. The reports proved that the wages paid 
in the United States were double those paid in England, 
three times as much as in Italy, Spain and Germany, four 
times as much as in the Netherlands, and about two-thirds 
more than in France, Belgium and Denmark. 

The wages of operatives constitute the greater amount of 
the cost of production everywhere, but are from fifty to sixty 
per cent, more of the first cost in the United States than in 
Europe. 

During President Arthur’s administration a Commission 
was appointed to investigate the questions pertaining “ to the 
establishment of a judicious tariff, or a revision of the existing 
tariff upon a scale of justice to all interests.” 

Every available source of information was sought by this 
Commission. Its reports, made December 4, 1882, covered 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1 888-1893. 35 I 

the testimony taken, the conclusions of the Commission, and a 
new tariff bill. This was virtually adopted by Congress, and 
remained in force until suspended by the McKinley Tariff. 

The McKinley Bill was framed after the most careful 
study of the tariffs of 1833, 1861 and 1883, and of the reports 
of our consuls and of the Commission mentioned above, to¬ 
gether with the consideration of the immense territory of the 
United States, covering the choicest portions of this continent, 
with its great diversity of climate, soil and productions, including 
almost inexhaustible supplies of the precious metals, iron ores, 
coal and petroleum, and those physical and climatic conditions 
which, utilized by industry, intelligence and thrift, and pro¬ 
tected by judicious tariffs, make us the greatest manufacturing 
nation and food producer in the world. The McKinley Tariff 
is peculiarly adapted to the present requirements of the Na¬ 
tion, as it is more judicious and more symmetrical in its out¬ 
lines than any one of its predecessors. It covers in its 
provisions a much greater number .of industries that should be 
protected from unfair foreign competition than was done in 
the one it superseded. It aims to introduce the essential pro¬ 
visions that constitute a genuine American tariff—one that 
should produce sufficient revenue, and at the same time equallj^ 
encourage all our industries, according to the varied conditions 
under which these are carried on. 

RECIPROCITY. 

Reciprocity is pre-eminently a Republican measure. The 
initiatory movement made in that direction was in 1881, 
when Mr. Garfield was President and Mr. Blaine Secretary of 
State. The Secretary wrote to the sister republics on this' 
continent that, if they were brought more in sympathy with 
one another and with us by means of reciprocal and friendly 
acts, the common prosperity might be greatly promoted. To 
this end the President invited these republics to send dele¬ 
gates to the City of Washington, there to meet representatives 
of the United States in order to confer as to the best interests 
of all parties. The invitation was accepted by nearly all the 
republics, and the Empire of Brazil asked the privilege of 


352 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


sending delegates. Unfortunately, a few weeks before the 
day appointed for the meeting of the Convention, President 
Garfield died. 

There the matter rested for nearly eight years, when one 
of the senators frorn Maine introduced into the Senate the 
following resolution : That the President is requested and 
authorized to invite the Republics of Mexico, Central and 
South America, Hayti and San Domingo and the Empire of 
Brazil to join the United States in the Conference to be held 
at Washington in 1889.” (Approved May 24, 1888.) The 
Pan-American Convention, as it is named, was held in Novem¬ 
ber of that year. 

It remained in session several months, and thoroughly dis¬ 
cussed the measures of international interest that were sug¬ 
gested in the letters of invitation. Meanwhile, as guests of 
the Nation, the members of the Convention were invited to 
visit quite a number of important and manufacturing centres 
in different sections of the Union. The friendly courtesies 
strengthened the previous good feeling existing between the 
governments of the New World, thus preparing the way for the 
series of reciprocity treaties afterwards made by the United 
States with these sister Republics. 

THE BENEFICENT RESULT. 

In the above narration of facts can be traced the origin as 
well as the reason for that provision in the McKinley Tariff 
Bill, by which the President, under certain conditions, is author¬ 
ized to make treaties of reciprocity with certain nations. This 
is a new and important departure from our usual custom in 
respect to numerous classes of imports. As soon as the Gov¬ 
ernment was relieved of a portion of the drain upon its funds 
which grew out of the expenses of the Civil War, it began to 
admit free of duty the raw material used in manufacturing 
when it was of a class that we could not produce. The com¬ 
modities affected by the present treaties of reciprocity come 
almost universally from tropical regions, such as india-rubber, 
gutta-percha, etc., for our factories, and for our domestic com¬ 
fort, tea, coffee, chocolate, spices, etc. When this tariff was 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1888-1893. 


353 


under consideration in Congress these various tropical articles, 
with the exception of sugar, were admitted to our market free 
of duty, while at the same time, in not a single instance did 
our products, such as flour and other food provisions, find cor¬ 
respondingly free admission into the countries whence these 
articles came. On the contrary, our commodities had imposed 
upon them duties in some instances so high as to be almost 
prohibitory in their effect. 

To meet this contingency an amendment quite unique in its 
character was made to the McKinley Bill. It provided that in 
case any country from which we admit free of duty certain 
articles, such as sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, hides, etc., imposes 
duties upon the products of the United States which they 
may import, which duties the President may “ deem to be re¬ 
ciprocally unequal and unreasonable, he shall have the power, 
and it shall be his duty to suspend, by proclamation to that 
effect, the provisions of this act relating to the free intro¬ 
duction ” of the articies mentioned above. 

This amendment opened the way for the President to con¬ 
clude treaties of reciprocity with these several countries. For 
the most part the amendment was more applicable to those 
countries that produced tropical agricultural products, which 
we could not raise because of climatic influences. These 
treaties have opened a new and large field for our exports, 
especially of agricultural productions in the form of wheat, 
flour and other food products, and also a goodly share of our 
manufactures. 

Under the McKinley Bill sugar is admitted free of duty. 
The duty formerly imposed upon sugar amounted to about 
$50,000,000 annually, and this the consumers paid because the 
sugar producer fixed his own price^ to which was added the 
duty. We were unable to raise sufficient sugar to supply our 
wants; if we could have done so we would, and then the 
American producer would have fixed his own price in accord¬ 
ance with the cost of production, and to that price the for¬ 
eigner would have to conform upon entering our market; he 
could not increase that price, but he might lower it. 

In connection with this provision of the bill there was an- 


354 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


other—that of giving a bounty of two cents a pound to the 
producers of domestic sugar. This bounty enables the latter 
to enter the market and sell their product at a fair profit. 
The policy of paying this bounty is far-reaching in beneficial 
results. It is reasonable to suppose that in time, by this 
means, we shall learn how to supply our own sugar from our 
own soil, as has been done in France, Germany and other 
countries in Europe. 

It is estimated that the increased amount of sugar used in 
consequence of its free admission would, under the former rate 
of duty, afford the government $55,000,000 annually. This 
estimate shows that an average of about five pounds of sugar a 
year is now used by each person, old and young, of our popu¬ 
lation. It is evident the cheapening of this article of food has 
been a great benefit to the masses of the people. 

It is singular but true that prominent members of that 
polititical party which confesses to be pre-eminently “ the 
friend of the poor man ” are blatant against a bounty of two 
cents a pound on sugar obtained from our own resources, 
though by that means is promoted a home industry in which 
are invested millions of capital, and which give employment 
to many thousands of “ poor men,” or those who earn their 
living by working for wages. 

The item of free sugar, as has been said, saves annually to 
those who use it $55,000,000, but out of this is paid yearly 
about $7,000,000 in the bounty mentioned above, leaving a net 
gain to the consumers of sugar of $48,000,000. 

Still further: in the McKinley Bill 99 per cent, of the duty 
paid on a raw material which enters into an American manu¬ 
factured article is refunded when that article is exported. 
This is to enable, as far as possible, our manufacturers to com¬ 
pete in foreign markets, where wages are so much lower. 

APPROPRIATIONS. 

The Fifty-first Congress was charged with being extrava¬ 
gant in the amount of its appropriations. The Republicans, 
when in control of the House of Representatives, wherein 
appropriations legally originate, have always made them in 


355 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1 888-1893. 

good faith, and never for the sake of political effect; hence 
they appropriated the amounts that were called for by the care¬ 
ful estimates for the coming financial year. On the contrary, 
when the Democrats are in control of the lower House, they 
have uniformly, if a Presidential canvass was impending, made 
appropriations that were inadequate in their amount. Then 
they go to the country on this fictitious economy, urging the 
rank and file to witness how saving they have been of the 
money of the dear people. 

In course of time these inadequate funds are about ex¬ 
hausted, and the departments appeal to Congress to make up 
their respective deficiencies. The money is quietly voted, and 
in an unobtrusive manner mentioned in the newspapers of the 
party, where it excites little notice, the people remembering 
only the hue and the cry about the marvelous economy of the 
party when in control. 

The Fifty-first Congress, in addition to the regular appro¬ 
priations, took in hand the payment of honest debts which had 
been neglected for years. It refunded to the loyal States 
$13,000,000, that being the amount of a direct tax paid by 
them to aid the Government during the Rebellion. It also paid 
the French spoliation claims $1,004,095. In its first three 
years the Harrison administration paid off $259,000,000 of the 
National debt, and saved to the people an annual interest of 
nearly $12,000,000. It also, in order to meet the wants of the 
business of the country, in the same time increased the circu¬ 
lation to about $205,000,000. 

THE PERSISTENT FOE OF OUR INDUSTRIES. 

American industries had an inveterate foe in the govern¬ 
ment officials of the mother country, even when our ancestors 
were an integral portion of the British domain. When they 
became an independent nation, Parliament could no longer 
make laws that would injure their industrial interest directly. 
The antagonism, however, remained, but changed its tactics 
by taking the form of competition. This hostility began to 
manifest itself immediately after the close of the war of 1812. 
During that period of three years our mechanical industries, 


356 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


untrammeled by English competition in this country, advanced 
with remarkable energy and success. This fact attracted the 
attention of the manufacturers and merchants in England, 
and Lord Brougham in his place in Parliament (i8i6) advised 
them to send their goods of every kind to the United States 
in large quantities and sell them even at a loss, “ in order by 
the glut to stifle in the cradle those manufacturers which 
the war (that of 1812) had forced into existence, contrary to 
the nature of things.” (Hansard’s Pari. Debates, 1st series, 
xxxiii., p. 1009.) 

The last phrase plainly meant that England ought “ in the 
nature of things ” to be the workshop of the world. 

The tariff of 1846 lowered the rate on imported iron much 
below that of 1842. The iron masters in England at once 
began to lower their prices on iron of all grades which they 
were sending to the United States, their agents here mean¬ 
while keeping them informed as to the effect produced, espe¬ 
cially noting that furnace after furnace in Pennsylvania had to 
put out its fires. 

At length came the announcement: “ That there was no 
longer any danger from American competition.” The re¬ 
sponse immediately came, “Advance prices” (1848). In less 
than a year the pride of English rails was increased 100 per 
cent. (Amer. Protectionists’ Manual, p. 68.) 

A Parliament commission reported in 1854 as to the losses 
sustained by English manufacturers in their efforts “ to destroy 
foreign competition and to gain and keep possession of foreign 
markets, to overwhelm all foreign competition, to step in for 
the whole trade when prices revive.” Afterward Lord Gode¬ 
rich stated in the House of Lords that England meant by 
means of her trade “ to get the m.onopoly of all their (those of 
other nations) markets for her (own) manufacturers and to 
prevent them, one and all, from ever becoming manufacturing 
nations. 

Later on, in 1882, an article in Blackwood, entitled “ Fi¬ 
nance West of the Atlantic,” it is noted as a bad omen that 
“ American ingenuity (in inventions) is proverbial,” but the 
writer finds consolation in the fact that the phrase “Tariff Re- 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS: 1888-1893. 357 

form,” instead of “ Free Trade,” had been adopted in “ Demo¬ 
cratic electioneering speeches.” 

The London Engineer of April 8, 1892, in speaking of the 
falling off of English exports to the United States, editorially 
says : “ The (McKinley) Bill was intended to foster native pro¬ 
ductions, and this it is doing to a very satisfactory extent 
from the American point of view. The general idea in Eng¬ 
land is that the bill will be repealed before long, or its provi¬ 
sions most objectionable to the British manufacturers be modi¬ 
fied.” 

Lord Salisbury in his famous speech of May, 1892, admits 
the value to the United States of our reciprocity treaties, 
insists that free trade has been carried so far in Great Britain 
as to deprive the English of the means of securing reciprocal 
trade, and urges that within certain limits that feature of the 
McKinley Bill be adopted by the English Government. 

THE COBDEN CLUB. 

This association is the avowed enemy of our industries. 
Its president declared that it ‘^cannot rest while the United 
States are unsubdued ; not only England but the whole world 
is to be brought into obedience.” The “ club ” is sustained by 
a great number of the most influential men in the kingdom, 
and the funds forthcoming to carry out its plans are almost 
unlimited. Against all these, and their avowed coadjutors in 
the Union, the friends of American mechanical industries have 
to contend to-day. 

Earl Spencer presided at a meeting of the club during the 
Presidential canvass of 1880, and made an opening address, in 
which he not very cautiously outlined the plans and designs of 
the club. The latter were to utterly destroy in the world any 
industry wherever existing that competed with English manu¬ 
factures. He exclaimed : “ It is to the New World that the 
Cobden Club is chiefly looking as the most likely sphere for its 
vigorous foreign policy.” 

The London Times intimated quite clearly that the speak¬ 
ers at the dinner were too sanguine, and it mildly suggested, 
using the word of a correspondent, that the people of “ the 


358 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


United States do not approach the question from the same 
standpoint as ourselves ; ” then adding: “ The object of their 
statesmen is 7 iot to secure the largest amount of wealth (revenue) 
for the country generally, but to keep up by whatever means the 
standard of comfort among the laboring classes."—London Times, 
fuly 12, 1880,//. 12, 13. 

Could there be a higher compliment, though perhaps un¬ 
consciously given, than this to the statesmen who now for 
thirty years have thus protected the comfort of the wage- 
earners—about three-fourths of our population—and cherished 
our mechanical industries in such manner as to give them em¬ 
ployment at living wages ? 

This club uses influence and money freely to gain its ends. 
It flatters any Americans who may toady to British opinion 
and who like to seem “ English,” elects them honorary mem¬ 
bers, and calls them “ distinguished Americans.” 

It subsidizes the press, offers prize medals to students of 
certain American colleges for essays in favor of free trade, and 
in every possible way endeavors to so control American 
politics as to enable England to profit by our foolishness. 

There has not been a Presidential election here for years 
in which this “ club ” has not taken part, and in its peculiar 
way labored for the election of the Democratic candidate. 

It has been earnest and diligent in scattering far and wide 
its tracts against protection, and has used its American “ hono¬ 
rary members ” as agents. 

It is working for its home interest. Americans should 
understand this situation, and see that, while it may be for 
English interest “to destroy absolutely America’s mechanical 
industries,” it is for our interest to cherish and protect our 
every industry as has always been done by the Republican 
party. 


r 






















359 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS —1892 TO DATE. 

THE CAMPAIGN OF 1892. 

In 1892 the Republican Party renominated General Harrison 
for President, with Whitelaw Reid for Vice-President, on a 
platform reaffirming the vital principles and policies which had 
been adhered to during its entire history. 

The Democrats nominated Grover Cleveland for President 
and Adlai E. Stevenson for Vice-President. They made glow¬ 
ing promises and drew beautiful pictures of the prosperity that 
would be sure to come if the Democrats gained the entire con¬ 
trol of the Government. Many voters were deceived by these 
specious promises, and Grover Cleveland was elected President, 
with a large Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress. 
For the first time since the War of Rebellion the Democratic 
Party had the long-desired opportunity to shape the National 
policy. Let history tell its sad story of the results. 

When the Republican Party went out of power the country 
was prosperous and happy, business was good, labor was in de¬ 
mand and was well paid, the National debt was being steadily 
reduced, our credit was good, and we were respected among 
the nations of the world. 

The Democratic Party came into power, pledged by their 
party platform to comparatively free trade: “ We declare it 
to be a fundamental principle of the Democratic Party that the 
Federal Government has no constitutional power to impose and 
collect tariff duties, except for the purpose of revenue only.” 

From the first the Democratic Administration showed its un¬ 
fitness for its work. In almost every step it made blunders, 
due partly to incapacity and partly to its erroneous principles. 
As a result, men of all parties became distrustful of the future, 
business became dull, thousands were out of work, mills shut 
down, banks failed, railroads covering more than half of the 
iron tracks in the United States went into the hands of re¬ 
ceivers, and the people everywhere suffered from the disastrous 
results of a change of policy. 

THE WILSON-GORMAN TARIFF. 

One of the first acts of the Democratic Administration was 


36 o 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


an attempt to carry out its tariff pledges; but, confronted by 
a condition instead of a theory, they began to see the great 
danger to the laboring classes in any attempt to lower the tariff 
even, much more in bringing it down to a tariff for revenue 
only.” Still the party was pledged to do something, and in spite 
of protests of the Republican leaders, backed by the business 
condition, the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Bill was forced through 
Congress in 1894. 

The reduction of-the tariff has proved a wonderful object- 
lesson to the people, who, learning thus practically the value 
of a protective tariff, in succeeding State elections rebuked the 
Democrats in the most effective manner. The results of the 
Wilson-Gorman Tariff were everywhere seen in paralyzed busi¬ 
ness, ruined industries, idle workmen, and loss of revenue. 

Month after month the revenue decreased until the Govern¬ 
ment was obliged to borrow money to pay its expenses, passing 
from a surplus to a deficienoy in less than a year. 

THE BOND ISSUE. 

The total incapacity of the Democratic Administration to 
handle the financial policy of the Government was so evident 
as to cause a general feeling of distrust at home and abroad. 
Gold began to flow out of the country, and the reserve was 
rapidly depleted. This was another effect of the Wilson-Gor¬ 
man Tariff, which was greatly decreasing the revenues and 
leaving monthly deficits in the Treasury. 

The Democratic Administration, under pretense that it was 
necessary to keep the gold reserve intact, determined to fill the 
Treasury by an issue of bonds. The Republicans showed that 
this was a mere pretense, and urged a return to the high tariff, 
under which the Treasury was full and the gold reserve abun¬ 
dant. Even influential Democratic journals, like the New York 
“ World,” admitted that ” much of the Treasury’s perplexity 
arose from a deficiency of revenue,” but the Administration 
blindly placed the Treasury under the control of a Trust Syndi¬ 
cate, which forced the Administration to its own terms and 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS —1892 TO DATE. 361 

bought from the Treasury, at 104^, $100,000,000 worth of 
bonds, whose market value was 120. 

But the deficiency in revenue still continued, and soon the gold 
reserve was again depleted. Another secret bargain was nearly 
completed for a second sale of bonds at the same low prices when 
the Republicans, aided by the wiser Democrats, compelled the 
Administration to sell them to the highest bidder, at a gain of 
millions to the Treasury and a loss of millions to the Bond Trust. 

INDEBTEDNESS. 

During the preceding Republican administrations the in¬ 
debtedness of the United States had been largely decreased. 
President Harrison’s Administration reduced the interest- 
bearing indebtedness nearly $300,000,000. In President Cleve¬ 
land’s Administration the increase of the National debt, with its 
interest, amounted to over $500,000,000, while the losses in 
business and in the decrease of property value were so enor¬ 
mous as to be almost incredible. 

THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 

In 1823 President Monroe, in a message to Congress, declared 
the position of the United States toward European interference 
in the affairs of independent American governments as follows: 

We owe, therefore, it to candor, and to the amicable rela¬ 
tions existing between the United States and the allied powers, to 
declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to ex¬ 
tend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous 
to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or depen¬ 
dencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall 
not interfere, but with the governments who have declared their 
independence and maintained it, and whose independence we 
have, on great consideration and just principles, acknowledged, 
we could not view an interposition for the purpose of oppressing 
them or controlling in any other manner their destiny (by any 
European power) in any other light than as a manifestation of 
an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” 

The Republican Party has always held this doctrine to be es¬ 
sential to the protection of our country’s interest. As oppor- 


362 


THE ^REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


tunity has occurred while it was in power, it has effectively 
carried out this doctrine without bluster or threats, but simply 
by acting up to it. When a foreign prince was placed on the 
Mexican throne, and was supported by foreign troops, a quiet 
statement of our position in the matter, made by a Republican 
President to the Government interested, caused a recall of its 
troops and the downfall of the usurper. In numerous other 
instances the Republican administrations have made themselves 
felt as protectors of our National interests, while also caring for 
our sister republics. 

Where a Republican Administration would have acted wisely, 
promptly, successfully, and with dignity, the Cleveland Admin¬ 
istration contented itself with an inflammatory, threatening mes¬ 
sage, after which it took the necessary steps to allow the doctrine 
to fall into its previous state of innocuous desuetude. 

The spirit of the Monroe Doctrine is more than the letter. 
It encourages a government of the people, at least in this part 
of the world. When, therefore, in Hawaii the desire for a rep¬ 
resentative government modeled after our own was made 
manifest by a rebellion against the ignorant native queen, the 
Republicans naturally sympathized with the newly formed re¬ 
public. The Democratic Administration, on the contrary, en¬ 
deavored by every means except force to restore the queen, 
and repelled all attempts on the part of the Hawaiian Republic 
to enter into the closest relations with this country. 

Fortunately, it was well understood in Hawaii that the Ad¬ 
ministration did not represent true American sentiment, and 
the republic, under the wise rule of President Dole, gradually 
overcame all opposition and became firmly established, content 
to wait the action of the United States. 

THE MONEY QUESTION. 

The Republican Party has always been the party of sound 
money. It has never believed in any legal tender inferior to 
that of the most enlightened nations. Knowing that if two 
grades of currency are used the inferior will inevitably go to 
the laboring man for his work, while capitalists will control the 


PRESENT HOME AND THE BIRTHPLACE OF GEN. HARRISON 
















































































































































































































































































I 


t 


s 









I 


< • 


I 





I 


t 


I 


» 


t 


$ • 





I 


ITS RISE AND PROGRESS— 1892 TO DATE. 363 


more valuable currency, it advocates for the protection of labor 
a financial system that will make one dollar as good as another. 

The Republican Party, in carrying the country through the 
War of Rebellion, issued the greenback and sold a large amount 
of coin bonds. When the war was over, in spite of an enormous 
debt and the distrust of European financiers, the Republican 
Party gained the confidence of the world by paying honestly 
what the nation had borrowed. It soon had all its issues on a 
par with gold. In fact, at times its paper currency has com¬ 
manded a premium over gold, and its bonds have been sought 
for all over the world at a very low rate of interest. 

The Republican Party is therefore committed to so use and 
protect the various kinds of currency it stamps with the nation’s 
honor that each and all shall be what it claims to be, thus pro¬ 
tecting all classes from a debased currency on the one hand, 
and from the power of European bankers on the other. 

It is unalterably opposed to the free and unlimited coinage 
of silver, as well as to any scheme which threatens to debase or 
depreciate the National currency. 

It favors the largest use of silver as currency under such reg¬ 
ulations as will maintain its parity with gold while this re¬ 
mains the standard of the United States and of the civilized 
world. It has urged and will continue to advocate a bimetallic 
International Conference, for the purpose of an agreement by 
which a universal ratio for silver and gold will be determined. 
Until this can be brought about, for the safety of this country’s 
industries gold must be the standard for the measure of values, 
while silver must be given its proper place as a circulating 
medium, and coined as freely as it can be ab.sorbed in business 
transactions without disturbing the financial standard. 

THE FUTURE. 

The Republican Party is the child of the American people. 
It grew out of their needs. It has served them faithfully through 
the inspiration that comes from a true and lofty conception of 
the necessities of National growth. In all the past the nation 
has been prosperous while it was governed by Republican prin- 


364 


THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


ciples, and has suffered whenever it consented to try the Demo¬ 
cratic theories in tariff and finance. Experience and facts speak 
louder than theory and sophistical arguments. This experience 
has written the story of our Nation’s growth in factories, count¬ 
ing-houses, fields, and countless happy homes. It tells of the 
reunited nation, of the restoration of credit, of the honest pay¬ 
ment of the National debt, of the establishment of diversified 
industries, and of wonderful growth. 

The Republican Party has proved itself to be the people’s 
friend, able, honest, progressive, the party of good wages, good 
work, good money, good markets, and good homes. All this 
is history, the result of protection and sound money. 

But we are confronted with a new and a greater danger to 
our prosperity than any in the past—a danger to the prosper¬ 
ity of the working-men, which, unless wisely met, will seriously 
injure the entire Nation. 

The China-Japan War has opened up great countries for 
manufacturing enterprises. In China and Japan labor costs 
but a few cents a day. A great variety of manufactories are 
already being established there. They will be steadily pouring 
into this country all kinds of manufactured articles made so 
cheaply as to be sold here far below our cost of manufacture. 
The Pacific Coast sees this now. Soon we shall all realize it. 
The principle of protection of American labor must be main¬ 
tained and extended, or our working-men will find their wages 
reduced, and in many cases cut off entirely, through the ruin 
brought by this competition. 

A protection that protects labor has, in spite of theory, made 
this country prosperous. Such protection as will in the future 
give American markets to American products, and place a 
sufficient tariff on foreign pauper-made articles to keep them 
from destroying our own sales, is more essential than ever to 
the well-being of the laborer in every branch of industry. To 
this protection the Republican Party stands pledged b^ its 
record. To this protection the workman must look for his future 
prosperity. Under this protection, wisely regulated, the Nation 
will enter a new period of development and progress. 

H U** 81 < 



Jl 




I'I 


; 


• V' 




I'l.r','’ 


I 


4 


I 


I 


II 


K. 




wr 




t 




I. 



r 

'i 


.• 

I 

k 

t 





. I 









• o 


'Ko 

' ® ♦ 



• Ow^^ - 



'\ J <• ^ r O 

,v ^ - ’ ao^ *'•’• y ‘•"■> 

.-?> •“ 



'°.‘* A <. ♦7T!T' 0^ o -o.*- ^ ^ >... 

' • -» '^O c • ^ ' • «* *^0 0 <» " « t 








- v^ 

*“ A*^ '“ * 



^o'' % *..■ , 

.o'^ .'*«- ''^ v' • 

/ ■ ' ' 

<f> -^rr.- <6^ • - 

" • \ cP^ 

v' ^ ^0 f ’' • *»> ^ v' aO .^ * • ° 



- A ^ ^ 

<Jy'' ^ o - a ^ ^ 

■J^ •_cC 5 ?XVvk'‘ 

," ^ <csv>\\ n^ •' ^ 


-^o v*^ : 






vP^- 











o * A* '^j o'M 

-®.*’' A "''VTV* O' '••’ 

' •« *^0 o ° “ ® ♦ n*'^ • ‘' • ♦ *^o A*^^ c ® ** * <* 

.vW^k'. « 

• A°x> :m^: iOvj 


'b V* 





'\o'^ .•••- '"'> v' . 

'% ^ ' 
*^^//k\ ^‘V 


• H O 



• A '’j>. » 

,* - 



if irM “ 


o') % -.^f,* 

. -iP .i«‘s'. *‘J-‘''^ 

*‘ '* 

A -'..«* - G^ <> " o • » 

,<i> ^ O •» • - . t » . ^ ^ 

C ♦* * 



•r O 




A<<V « ,;i^raSfl^J!. r ^,r^cy 



^ "o. * ^ A 

-» ^O c ® " ® ♦ 





t • 


•/* ^ 'O* ■v 

- tf. J' '* 

'^'i- :^m!A°. 

■* ® • 

" " ^D ‘'o. /\ ^ 

-r*» .6^ 4 • '” * * '^ ^ C ® " * -* 

'^ov^ : 










r. *' A 


o \'J * 5 ^. ” ' “k ^ 

‘ r o ',-*''^K^/ 

v''' • • • °%- * “' ° \^° ‘ " ’ ’' . . 

\</ ymk^ 

♦ <'r O V \K * Ak • 

4 -^v 4 ^ 





*^0 v4> c-"". o'^ .‘'♦» '*'0 

' %, « 4 ''-^v S 






<T» *<V " ^ o 3 l'^ ” '^ 

’■' °^ ■■'■•>’ aO V ••.' 

V <^ < 0 ^ ♦ 



O ' O » * 

- 0 / : 

o 3,0 v^ *• 

^ * -r^x/iu^ar >. 

ml/k-. -'aVa- ti. *‘ 



» V o 




W 






^ . 

O^ "O , * 

*. °o ^■i''^’’ .V^'' "'U 

•>*_ .-> .V'^ 11 ^'. Q< 




b * « 



^ K 


'»^ *"»• o• '^, 



'o K 


» . o « ^ 0 ^ o *♦. . o ’ 

<0^ “ ’ •jf" V •jJIoL''*' ^ ,.’*o, v> v^ ♦•* 



^<5 

V-^ 

rU 

r?* 





*• -, 


x^ A^ ^ 

: <^‘>^'% '• 

”•», fO^ ^ fO^ "^ 9 ^ 










'^o 


..■••\/.V^-/ \-^-'/ V^v 

♦ /O^ y^ • 

* ^ "''TTi* .0 




*‘i^’ o ® " « ♦ 




• < 4 ^ • 


^ • A 



<>. . 


0 ^ .•'■'•♦ 0 ® " • t 

'^b ^ 


0 n o 


“ J’® V 

r- /!y* ^^Va'. A^- ♦' 



» * A^'^ •* 






c,‘ 5 'Pr 

^ * -Cr’ •#*■. 

• b- A <!^ -"-TT^* «0^ ^ "o. 















